UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-6636
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
CARL BLAISE, a/k/a Carl Malaskiewicz, a/k/a
John Doe, a/k/a Carl Coydic, a/k/a Carl Blais,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Chief
District Judge. (CR-00-218-A, CA-02-1808-AM)
Submitted: September 11, 2003 Decided: September 17, 2003
Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Carl Blaise, Appellant Pro Se. Dennis Michael Kennedy, Assistant
United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Carl Blaise seeks to appeal the district court’s orders
denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000)
and motion to reconsider. 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 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, ,
123 S. Ct. 1029, 1039-40 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473,
484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir.), cert.
denied, 534 U.S. 941 (2001). We have independently reviewed the
record and conclude that Blaise 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
2