Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Leon Earl OUTERBRIDGE, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-10-30
Citations: 252 F. App'x 555
Docket Number: No. 07-6812
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Leon Earl OUTERBRIDGE, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before MICHAEL and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 252
Pages: 555–556

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Leon Earl OUTERBRIDGE, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 07-6812.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Oct. 22, 2007.
Decided: Oct. 30, 2007.
Leon Earl Outerbridge, Appellant Pro Se. Steve R. Matheny, Office of the United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before MICHAEL and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Leon Earl Outerbridge seeks to appeal the district court's orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion and denying his Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) motion. 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 Outerbridge 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.