Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ronald EUSTACH, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-04-23
Citations: 274 F. App'x 337
Docket Number: No. 08-6031
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Ronald EUSTACH, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 274
Pages: 337–338

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Ronald EUSTACH, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 08-6031.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: April 17, 2008.
Decided: April 23, 2008.
Ronald Eustach, Appellant Pro Se. Alfred William Walker Bethea, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Ronald Eustach seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his motion for reconsideration of the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. The order is 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 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 Eustach has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny Eustach's motion to expand the 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.