Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Alejandro REYES, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-03-02
Citations: 220 F. App'x 218
Docket Number: No. 05-7562
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Alejandro REYES, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 220
Pages: 218–218

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Alejandro REYES, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 05-7562.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Jan. 31, 2007.
Decided: March 2, 2007.
Alejandro Reyes, Appellant Pro Se. N. George Metcalf, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Alejandro Reyes seeks to appeal the district court's order filed September 6, 2005, which denied relief on several claims raised in his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. The order is 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 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 Reyes 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.