Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Aaron William DANGERFIELD, a/k/a Dusty, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-12-04
Citations: 82 F. App'x 77
Docket Number: No. 03-7061
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Aaron William DANGERFIELD, a/k/a Dusty, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 82
Pages: 77–78

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Aaron William DANGERFIELD, a/k/a Dusty, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 03-7061.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 19, 2003.
Decided Dec. 4, 2003.
Aaron William Dangerfield, Appellant pro se.
Michael Edward Rich, Office of the United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Aaron William Dangerfield seeks to appeal the district court's orders denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000), and denying his motion for reconsideration. The orders are 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 his constitutional claims are debatable 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, 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 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Dangerfield has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny his motion for 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