Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Anthony GRANDISON, Jr., Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-04-21
Citations: 177 F. App'x 300
Docket Number: No. 05-7705
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Anthony GRANDISON, Jr., Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before MICHAEL and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 177
Pages: 300–300

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Anthony GRANDISON, Jr., Defendant—Appellant.
No. 05-7705.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: March 27, 2006.
Decided: April 21, 2006.
Anthony Grandison, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Michael DiBiagio, United States Attorney, John Francis Purcell, Jr., Office of the United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Before MICHAEL and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Anthony Grandison, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court's orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion and denying his motion for reconsideration pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e), 60(b). 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 the district court's assessment of his constitutional claims is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. 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 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Grandison 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.