Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Alejandro Guerrero LOPEZ, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-12-16
Citations: 115 F. App'x 147
Docket Number: No. 04-7344
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Alejandro Guerrero LOPEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 115
Pages: 147–148

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Alejandro Guerrero LOPEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 04-7344.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Dec. 9, 2004.
Decided: Dec. 16, 2004.
Alejandro Guerrero Lopez, Appellant pro se.
William Frederick Gould, Office of the United States Attorney, Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, 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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Alejandro Guerrero Lopez seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). The order is not appeal-able unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability mil 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 Lopez 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