Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ernesto CHAVEZ-REYES, a/k/a Fernando, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-03-18
Citations: 90 F. App'x 36
Docket Number: No. 03-7932
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Ernesto CHAVEZ-REYES, a/k/a Fernando, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 90
Pages: 36–37

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Ernesto CHAVEZ-REYES, a/k/a Fernando, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 03-7932.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted March 11, 2004.
Decided March 18, 2004.
Ernesto Chavez-Reyes, Appellant pro se.
Arnold L. Husser, Office of the United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before WIDENER, WILKINSON, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Ernesto Chavez-Reyes seeks to appeal the district court's order accepting the magistrate judge's recommendation and denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent "a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Chavez-Reyes has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED