Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Douglas Alan JARVIS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-12-04
Citations: 208 F. App'x 277
Docket Number: No. 06-7556
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Douglas Alan JARVIS, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before TRAXLER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 208
Pages: 277–278

Head Matter:
This case was not selected for publication in the Federal Reporter UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Douglas Alan JARVIS, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 06-7556.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Nov. 21, 2006.
Decided: Dec. 4, 2006.
Douglas Alan Jarvis, Appellant pro se. Laura Marie Everhart, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before TRAXLER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Douglas Alan Jarvis seeks to appeal the district court's order denying his Fed. R.Civ.P. 60(b) motion for reconsideration of the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion, and a subsequent margin order denying his motion for reconsideration. The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealabili ty. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000); Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 369 (4th Cir.2004). 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 dispositive 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 Jarvis has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny Jarvis' motion for leave to proceed in for-ma pauperis, 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.