Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Marino JIMENEZ, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-07-29
Citations: 70 F. App'x 133
Docket Number: No. 02-7897
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Marino JIMENEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before MICHAEL and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 70
Pages: 133–134

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Marino JIMENEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 02-7897.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted July 24, 2003.
Decided July 29, 2003.
Marino Jimenez, Appellant Pro Se. Douglas Scott Broyles, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before MICHAEL and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Marino Jimenez, a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his motions filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000), and Fed. R.Civ.P. 59(e). An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2255 proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability mil not issue for claims addressed by a district court 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, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 1040, 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.), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 941, 122 S.Ct. 318, 151 L.Ed.2d 237 (2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Jimenez 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.