Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Darren L. KEYS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-01-28
Citations: 262 F. App'x 535
Docket Number: No. 07-7593
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Darren L. KEYS, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before TRAXLER, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 262
Pages: 535–536

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Darren L. KEYS, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 07-7593.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Jan. 17, 2008.
Decided: Jan. 28, 2008.
Darren L. Keys, Appellant Pro Se. Harvey Ellis Eisenberg, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Before TRAXLER, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Darren L. Keys seeks to appeal the district court's order denying, as successive, his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion, and marginal order denying his motion to reconsider under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(6). The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certifícate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certifícate 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 Keys 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.