Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Stanley O'Neal GILL, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-04-22
Citations: 322 F. App'x 319
Docket Number: No. 08-7688
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Stanley O’Neal GILL, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 322
Pages: 319–319

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Stanley O’Neal GILL, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 08-7688.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: April 16, 2009.
Decided: April 22, 2009.
Stanley O’Neal Gill, Appellant Pro Se. Winnie Jordan Reaves, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Stanley O'Neal Gill seeks to appeal the district court's orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2008) motion and denying his motion to alter or amend under Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e). The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of ap-pealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). 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) (2006). 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 Gill has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Gill's motion for a certificate of ap-pealability 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.