Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Lazaro Alvardo RAMIREZ, Jr., Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-11-17
Citations: 300 F. App'x 244
Docket Number: No. 08-7191
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff— Appellee, v. Lazaro Alvardo RAMIREZ, Jr., Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 300
Pages: 244–244

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff— Appellee, v. Lazaro Alvardo RAMIREZ, Jr., Defendant—Appellant.
No. 08-7191.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Oct. 23, 2008.
Decided: Nov. 17, 2008.
Lazaro Alvardo Ramirez, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Eric Matthew Hurt, Lisa Rae McKeel, Howard Jacob Zlotnick, Assistant United States Attorneys, Newport News, Virginia; Blair C. Perez, Office of the United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Lazaro Alvardo Ramirez, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. 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 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.