Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Freddy RAMIREZ, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-04-06
Citations: 373 F. App'x 326
Docket Number: No. 10-6199
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Freddy RAMIREZ, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 373
Pages: 326–326

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Freddy RAMIREZ, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 10-6199.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: March 30, 2010.
Decided: April 6, 2010.
Freddy Ramirez, Appellant Pro Se. Elizabeth Jean Howard, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Freddy Ramirez seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing as successive his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2009) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certifícate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). A certificate of ap-pealability 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 Ramirez 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.