Court Opinion

ID: 8600341
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-11-23 21:36:31.229617+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:55:10.155242
License: Public Domain

PER CURIAM:
Jorge Gonzalez-Vasquez seeks to appeal the district court’s judgment dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion and orders denying his Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) motion and the motions for a certificate of appealability and for judicial notice. The judgment and 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 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 *157Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude Gonzalez-Vasquez 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