Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Terrence COLEMAN, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-06-02
Citations: 183 F. App'x 383
Docket Number: No. 05-7783
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Terrence COLEMAN, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 183
Pages: 383–383

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Terrence COLEMAN, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 05-7783.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: April 26, 2006.
Decided: June 2, 2006.
Terrence Coleman, Appellant Pro Se. Stacey Denise Haynes, Office of the United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Terrence Coleman seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000), and his motion to alter or amend judgement under Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e). 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 his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. See 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 Coleman 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.