Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Lorenzo ADDERLY, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-09-19
Citations: 242 F. App'x 18
Docket Number: No. 07-6788
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Lorenzo ADDERLY, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before GREGORY and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 242
Pages: 18–19

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Lorenzo ADDERLY, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 07-6788.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Sept. 13, 2007.
Decided: Sept. 19, 2007.
Lorenzo Adderly, Appellant pro se. Stephen Wiley Miller, Office of the United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before GREGORY and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Lorenzo Adderly seeks to appeal the district court's orders denying: (1) his Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) motion for reconsideration of the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion, and (2) his Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) motion for reconsideration of that order. 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); Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 369 (4th Cir.2004). 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 Adderly 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.