Case Name: Marcus J. LEWIS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-04-24
Citations: 177 F. App'x 303
Docket Number: No. 05-6230
Parties: Marcus J. LEWIS, Petitioner—Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent—Appellee.
Judges: Before MICHAEL, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 177
Pages: 303–304

Head Matter:
Marcus J. LEWIS, Petitioner—Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent—Appellee.
No. 05-6230.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: April 20, 2006.
Decided: April 24, 2006.
Marcus J. Lewis, Appellant Pro Se. Ryan Robert McKinstry, Office of the United States Attorney, Newport News, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before MICHAEL, KING, and DUNCAN, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Marcus Lewis 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 and to amend. 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, 336-38, 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 Lewis 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.