Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Louis Michael LAZORWITZ, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-04-23
Citations: 375 F. App'x 326
Docket Number: No. 09-6597
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Louis Michael LAZORWITZ, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before KING, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 375
Pages: 326–327

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Louis Michael LAZORWITZ, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 09-6597.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: March 31, 2010.
Decided: April 23, 2010.
Louis Michael Lazorwitz, Appellant Pro Se. Anne Margaret Hayes, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before KING, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Louis Michael Lazorwitz seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2009) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate 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 Lazorwitz has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Lazorwitz'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.