Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Bobby HAZEL, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-07-14
Citations: 102 F. App'x 357
Docket Number: No. 04-6540
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Bobby HAZEL, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 102
Pages: 357–358

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Bobby HAZEL, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 04-6540.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: May 21, 2004.
Decided: July 14, 2004.
Bobby Hazel, Appellant pro se.
Stephen E. Campbell, Office of the United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, 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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Bobby Hazel seeks to appeal the district court's orders dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion and denying his motion for reconsideration under Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e). The orders are 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 Hazel has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We also deny the motion to amend the certificate of appealability. 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