Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Marty Lorenzo WRIGHT, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-03-15
Citations: 129 F. App'x 753
Docket Number: No. 04-7735
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Marty Lorenzo WRIGHT, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 129
Pages: 753–754

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Marty Lorenzo WRIGHT, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 04-7735.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted March 10, 2005.
Decided March 15, 2005.
Marty Lorenzo Wright, Appellant pro se. Michael R. Smythers, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, 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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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.
Marty Lorenzo Wright, a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court's orders denying his motions under Fed. R.Civ.P. 60(b) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) concerning the court's previous denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000); Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 370 (4th Cir.2004). A certifícate 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 Wright 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