Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Tommy Lee ALFORD, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-07-28
Citations: 103 F. App'x 523
Docket Number: No. 04-6105
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Tommy Lee ALFORD, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 103
Pages: 523–523

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Tommy Lee ALFORD, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 04-6105.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: June 30, 2004.
Decided: July 28, 2004.
Tommy Lee Alford, Appellant pro se.
Rose Mary Parham, Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before WIDENER, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Tommy Lee Alford seeks to appeal from the district court's order denying his Fed. R.Civ.P. 60(b) motion seeking reconsideration of the district court's order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). 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 his or her constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336, 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 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Alford 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