Case Name: Michael G. KESELICA, Petitioner-Appellant, v. J. Michael STOUFFER, Warden, Maryland Correction Training Center; Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Virginia, Respondents-Appellees; Michael G. Keselica, Petitioner-Appellant, v. J. Michael Stouffer, Warden, Maryland Correction Training Center; Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Virginia, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-07-24
Citations: 234 F. App'x 130
Docket Number: Nos. 07-6285, 07-6350
Parties: Michael G. KESELICA, Petitioner—Appellant, v. J. Michael STOUFFER, Warden, Maryland Correction Training Center; Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Virginia, Respondents—Appellees. Michael G. Keselica, Petitioner—Appellant, v. J. Michael Stouffer, Warden, Maryland Correction Training Center; Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Virginia, Respondents—Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 234
Pages: 130–130

Head Matter:
Michael G. KESELICA, Petitioner—Appellant, v. J. Michael STOUFFER, Warden, Maryland Correction Training Center; Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Virginia, Respondents—Appellees. Michael G. Keselica, Petitioner—Appellant, v. J. Michael Stouffer, Warden, Maryland Correction Training Center; Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Virginia, Respondents—Appellees.
Nos. 07-6285, 07-6350.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: July 19, 2007.
Decided: July 24, 2007.
Michael G. Keselica, Appellant Pro Se. Richard Bain Smith, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appel-lees.
Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Michael G. Keselica seeks to appeal the magistrate judge's orders denying his Fed. R. Civ.P. 60(b) motions for reconsideration of the district court's order denying relief on his motion to reopen his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) proceeding and the order denying the first Rule 60(b) motion. The orders are 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 Keselica has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeals. 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.
The parties consented to jurisdiction of the magistrate judge.