Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jerry L. FRIERSON, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-12-14
Citations: 158 F. App'x 429
Docket Number: No. 05-7109, 05-7249
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Jerry L. FRIERSON, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before WILKINSON and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 158
Pages: 429–429

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Jerry L. FRIERSON, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 05-7109, 05-7249.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 28, 2005.
Decided Dec. 14, 2005.
Jerry L. Frierson, Appellant Pro Se. Leesa Washington, Office of the United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON and DUNCAN, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
In these consolidated appeals, Jerry L. Frierson, a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court's orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion and denying reconsideration under Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e), 60(b). The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000); see Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363 (4th Cir.2004). 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). This standard is satisfied by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find the district court's assessment of Frierson's constitutional claims 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 Frierson has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeals. 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