Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Terrence DANIELS, a/k/a Terrance Daniels, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-12-23
Citations: 304 F. App'x 187
Docket Number: No. 08-6853
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Terrence DANIELS, a/k/a Terrance Daniels, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 304
Pages: 187–188

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Terrence DANIELS, a/k/a Terrance Daniels, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 08-6853.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Dec. 10, 2008.
Decided: Dec. 23, 2008.
Terrence Daniels, Appellant Pro Se. Deborah Brereton Barbier, William Kenneth Witherspoon, Assistant United States Attorneys, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Terrence Daniels seeks to appeal the district comet's orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion and subsequent Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) motion for 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. § 2258(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 dis-positive 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 Daniels 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.