Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Richard Ronte JACKSON, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-04-06
Citations: 174 F. App'x 769
Docket Number: No. 05-7190
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Richard Ronte JACKSON, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 174
Pages: 769–769

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Richard Ronte JACKSON, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 05-7190.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted March 30, 2006.
Decided April 6, 2006.
Richard Ronte Jackson, Appellant Pro Se. Anthony Paul Giorno, Office of the United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before TRAXLER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Richard Ronte Jackson seeks to appeal the district court's orders denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) and denying his motion to reconsider filed pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e). The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of ap-pealability. 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, 336-38, 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 Jackson has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of ap-pealability 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