Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose Manuel BARZOLA, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-03-02
Citations: 172 F. App'x 23
Docket Number: No. 05-7494
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Jose Manuel BARZOLA, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 172
Pages: 23–24

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Jose Manuel BARZOLA, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 05-7494.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 23, 2006.
Decided March 2, 2006.
Jose Manuel Barzola, Appellant Pro Se. Sonya LaGene Sacks, Office of the United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and KING, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Jose Manuel Barzola seeks to appeal from the district court's order denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). The order is not appeal-able 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 Barzola has not made the requisite showing. We decline to consider the claims that Barzola asserts for the first time on appeal. See Muth v. United States, 1 F.3d 246, 250 (4th Cir.1993). 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.