Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Roberto SORTO, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-03-16
Citations: 123 F. App'x 127
Docket Number: No. 04-7551
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Roberto SORTO, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 123
Pages: 127–128

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Roberto SORTO, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 04-7551.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Feb. 18, 2005.
Decided: March 16, 2005.
Roberto Sorto, Appellant pro se.
Rebeca Hidalgo Bellows, Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and KING, 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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Roberto Sorto seeks to appeal the district court's amended order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion as successive. The order is 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 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 Sorto 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