Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Mauricio Mack GILL, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-07-09
Citations: 102 F. App'x 339
Docket Number: No. 03-6970
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Mauricio Mack GILL, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 102
Pages: 339–340

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Mauricio Mack GILL, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 03-6970.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: June 23, 2004.
Decided: July 9, 2004.
Mauricio Mack Gill, Appellant pro se.
Darryl J. Mitchell, OfBce of the United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before NIEMEYER and SHEDD, 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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Mauricio Mack Gill seeks to appeal the district court's order denying his motion to reopen the time to note an appeal from the district court order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2255 proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability is required to appeal the district court's order denying Gill's post-judgment motion. See Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363 (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 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 Gill 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