Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Dwayne DELESTON, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-05-03
Citations: 179 F. App'x 165
Docket Number: No. 05-7703
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Dwayne DELESTON, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 179
Pages: 165–166

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Dwayne DELESTON, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 05-7703.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: April 27, 2006.
Decided: May 3, 2006.
Dwayne Deleston, Appellant Pro Se. John Charles Duane, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Dwayne Deleston seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his motion to reconsider a prior order denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). The order is not appeal-able 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, 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 Deleston has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We also deny Deleston's motion for relief from judgment and 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.