Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Divine SHABAZZ, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-07-25
Citations: 234 F. App'x 157
Docket Number: No. 07-6432
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Divine SHABAZZ, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 234
Pages: 157–158

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Divine SHABAZZ, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 07-6432.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: July 19, 2007.
Decided: July 25, 2007.
Divine Shabazz, Appellant Pro Se. John Staige Davis, V, Office of the United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant.
Before MOTZ and GREGORY, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Divine Shabazz seeks to appeal the district court's order denying his Fed. R.Civ.P. 59(e) motion seeking reconsideration of the denial of 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) relief. The order is 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 Shabazz 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.