Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James E. DOWNING, a/k/a Marcus Moultrie, a/k/a Rahmel Lyles, a/k/a Ramez Lyles, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-09-10
Citations: 239 F. App'x 849
Docket Number: No. 07-6801
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. James E. DOWNING, a/k/a Marcus Moultrie, a/k/a Rahmel Lyles, a/k/a Ramez Lyles, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before MICHAEL, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 239
Pages: 849–850

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. James E. DOWNING, a/k/a Marcus Moultrie, a/k/a Rahmel Lyles, a/k/a Ramez Lyles, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 07-6801.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Aug. 30, 2007.
Decided: Sept. 10, 2007.
James E. Downing, Appellant Pro Se. Steve R. Matheny, Kimberly Ann Moore, Office of the United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before MICHAEL, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
James E. Downing seeks to appeal the district court's orders denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion and his subsequent 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 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 Downing 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.