UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-6115
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
JORGE GONZALEZ-VASQUEZ,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Chief
District Judge. (3:01-cr-00507-JFA-1; 3:04-cv-23196-JFA)
Submitted: March 23, 2006 Decided: March 31, 2006
Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jorge Gonzalez-Vasquez, Appellant Pro Se. Mark C. Moore, Assistant
United States Attorney, William Kenneth Witherspoon, OFFICE OF THE
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
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 (2003);
Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d
676, 683 (4th Cir. 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
- 2 -