Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Rosario A. FIORANI, Jr., Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-03-06
Citations: 269 F. App'x 241
Docket Number: No. 07-7426
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Rosario A. FIORANI, Jr., Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 269
Pages: 241–242

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Rosario A. FIORANI, Jr., Defendant—Appellant.
No. 07-7426.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Feb. 28, 2008.
Decided: March 6, 2008.
Rosario A. Fiorani, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. G. David Hackney, Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Rosario A. Fiorani, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court's order construing his "Motion for Reversal of Unconstitutional Conviction on Supreme Court's Ruling In re: Gonzalez-Lopez and Ineffective Assistance of Counsel and Violations of Sixth Amendment Rights" as a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion or, alternatively, as a petition for writ of coram nobis, and denying relief. The order is not appeal-able unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2258(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 dis-positive 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 Fiorani 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.
To the extent the district court construed Fiorani's motion as a petition for writ of coram nobis, we find no reversible error and affirm the denial of relief.