Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Leroy David JONES, a/k/a Fats, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-07-20
Citations: 190 F. App'x 225
Docket Number: No. 05-7933
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Leroy David JONES, a/k/a Fats, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 190
Pages: 225–226

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Leroy David JONES, a/k/a Fats, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 05-7933.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: July 12, 2006.
Decided: July 20, 2006.
Leroy David Jones, Appellant Pro Se. John Francis Purcell, Jr., Office of the United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Leroy David Jones seeks to appeal the district court's order denying his Fed. R. Civ.P. 60(b) motion for reconsideration of 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); Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 369 (4th Cir.2004). 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 Jones has not made the requisite showing.
Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We further deny Jones' request for the entry of a default judgment in his favor and for the production of certain documents. 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.