Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. John Barry McLENDON, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-11-03
Citations: 204 F. App'x 196
Docket Number: No. 06-6661
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. John Barry McLENDON, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 204
Pages: 196–196

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. John Barry McLENDON, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 06-6661.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Oct. 31, 2006.
Decided: Nov. 3, 2006.
John Barry McLendon, Appellant Pro Se. Douglas Scott Broyles, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
John Barry McLendon seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion, and his motion for reconsideration filed under Fed. R.Civ.P. 59(e). The order is not appeal-able 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 McLendon 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.