UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-7236
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
JOSE JUAN BARAJAS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard,
District Judge. (5:01-cr-00121-H-1; 5:03-cv-00785-H)
Submitted: January 17, 2007 Decided: February 12, 2007
Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jose Juan Barajas, Appellant Pro Se. Rudolf A. Renfer, Jr.,
Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jose Juan Barajas seeks to appeal the district court’s
order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion.* The
order is 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 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484
(2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have
independently reviewed the record and conclude that Barajas 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
*
To the extent that Barajas seeks to appeal the district
court’s orders denying his post-judgment motions — a motion to
amend his § 2255 motion and a Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for
reconsideration — because Barajas did not timely file a notice of
appeal as to those orders, they are not before us for review.
- 2 -