Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Donovan CUNNINGHAM, a/k/a Roger, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-06-03
Citations: 326 F. App'x 235
Docket Number: No. 08-8136
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Donovan CUNNINGHAM, a/k/a Roger, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 326
Pages: 235–236

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Donovan CUNNINGHAM, a/k/a Roger, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 08-8136.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: May 28, 2009.
Decided: June 3, 2009.
Donovan Cunningham, Appellant Pro Se. Philip S. Jackson, Allen F. Loucks, Assistant United States Attorneys, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Donovan Cunningham seeks to appeal the district court's orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2008) motion and summarily denying his subsequent Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) motion for reconsideration. 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 ap-pealability 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 Cunningham 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.