Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Eleazar TEODORO-BASILIO, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-06-28
Citations: 231 F. App'x 266
Docket Number: No. 07-6189
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Eleazar TEODORO-BASILIO, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 231
Pages: 266–266

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Eleazar TEODORO-BASILIO, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 07-6189.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: June 21, 2007.
Decided: June 28, 2007.
Eleazar Teodoro-Basilio, Appellant Pro Se.
Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Eleazar Teodoro-Basilio 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. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certifícate of appealability. 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 Teodoro-Basilio 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.