Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jonathan Joseph MATHIS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-11-19
Citations: 300 F. App'x 252
Docket Number: No. 08-6871
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Jonathan Joseph MATHIS, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 300
Pages: 252–253

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Jonathan Joseph MATHIS, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 08-6871.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Nov. 13, 2008.
Decided: Nov. 19, 2008.
Jeffrey Falkner Wilkes, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellant. Alan Lance Crick, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by published PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Jonathan Joseph Mathis seeks to appeal the district court's orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion and his 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 Mathis has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Mathis's motion for a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We also deny Mathis's motion for limited remand. 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.