Case Name: Travis Bernard FRALEY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-02-07
Citations: 216 F. App'x 292
Docket Number: No. 06-7566
Parties: Travis Bernard FRALEY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 216
Pages: 292–293

Head Matter:
Travis Bernard FRALEY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 06-7566.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Jan. 8, 2007.
Decided: Feb. 7, 2007.
Travis Bernard Fraley, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Jack Higdon, Jr., Office of the United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Travis Bernard Fraley seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion and subsequent motion to reconsider pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 59. 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 con stitutional 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 Fraley 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.