Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Manuel Popoca ANSELMO, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-03-30
Citations: 222 F. App'x 339
Docket Number: No. 07-6062
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Manuel Popoca ANSELMO, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before WIDENER and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 222
Pages: 339–340

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Manuel Popoca ANSELMO, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 07-6062.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: March 22, 2007.
Decided: March 30, 2007.
Manuel Popoca Anselmo, Appellant Pro Se. John Samuel Bowler, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before WIDENER and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Manuel Popoca Anselmo seeks to appeal the district court's orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion and denying reconsideration. 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 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 Anselmo has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Anselmo's motion for 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.