Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. David Allen DAY, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-07-25
Citations: 285 F. App'x 66
Docket Number: No. 08-6441
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. David Allen DAY, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 285
Pages: 66–66

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. David Allen DAY, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 08-6441.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: July 22, 2008.
Decided: July 25, 2008.
David Allen Day, Appellant Pro Se. Craig Jon Jacobsen, Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
David Allen Day seeks to appeal the district court's orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion and his Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) motion for reconsideration. The orders are 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 any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. 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, 683-84 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Day 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.