Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Enrique Alfonso GAYLE, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-12-30
Citations: 160 F. App'x 322
Docket Number: No. 05-7251
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Enrique Alfonso GAYLE, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before WILKINSON and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. '
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 160
Pages: 322–323

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Enrique Alfonso GAYLE, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 05-7251.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 16, 2005.
Decided Dec. 30, 2005.
Enrique Alfonso Gayle, Appellant Pro Se. Laura Marie Everhart, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. '
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Enrique Alfonso Gayle, a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court's orders dismissing his motions filed pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) and Fed.R.Crim.P. 35(a) seeking to raise Sixth Amendment claims as second or successive motions under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000); see Jones v. Braxton, 392 F.3d 683 (4th Cir. 2004); Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363 (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 the district court's assessment of his constitutional claims debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336, 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 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Gayle 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