Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Earl Edwin PITTS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-02-26
Citations: 219 F. App'x 315
Docket Number: No. 06-7853
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Earl Edwin PITTS, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 219
Pages: 315–316

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Earl Edwin PITTS, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 06-7853.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Feb. 15, 2007.
Decided: Feb. 26, 2007.
Earl Edwin Pitts, Appellant Pro Se. Kathleen Marie Kahoe, Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Earl Edwin Pitts seeks to appeal the district court's orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion and denying his motion for reconsideration. 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 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 Pitts 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.