Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Freddy RAMIREZ, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-03-27
Citations: 172 F. App'x 514
Docket Number: No. 05-7608
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Freddy RAMIREZ, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before LUTTIG, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 172
Pages: 514–514

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Freddy RAMIREZ, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 05-7608.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: March 10, 2006.
Decided: March 27, 2006.
Freddy Ramirez, Appellant Pro Se Elizabeth Jean Howard, Office of the United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before LUTTIG, KING, and GREGORY, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Freddy Ramirez, a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court's judgment denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 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 the district court's assessment of his constitutional claims is debatable or wrong 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 Ramirez has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we grant Ramirez's motion to amend his informal brief, 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
_.