Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Tivarus Montiento MCRAE, a/k/a Tat-Killer, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-03-12
Citations: 269 F. App'x 317
Docket Number: No. 07-7217
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Tivarus Montiento MCRAE, a/k/a Tat-Killer, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 269
Pages: 317–318

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Tivarus Montiento MCRAE, a/k/a Tat-Killer, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 07-7217.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: March 4, 2008.
Decided: March 12, 2008.
Tivarus Montiento McRae, Appellant Pro Se. John H. Bennett, Office of the United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON and NIEMEYER, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Tivarus Montiento McRae seeks to appeal the district court's orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion, his motion for reconsideration, and his motion for a certificate of appealability. 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 McRae has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny McRae's motion for appointment of counsel, 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.