United States v. Porter

                              UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                              No. 06-7675



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus


EMJADIA PORTER,

                                             Defendant - Appellant.


Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke.    Samuel G. Wilson, District
Judge. (7:94-cr-00037-sgw-1; 7:00-cv-00679-sgw)


Submitted:   March 21, 2007                 Decided:   April 6, 2007


Before WILKINSON and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Emjadia Porter, Appellant Pro Se.     Thomas Jack Bondurant, Jr.,
Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

           Emjadia Porter seeks to appeal the district court’s

orders denying relief on his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for

reconsideration of the district court’s order denying relief on his

28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion and his motions for a certificate of

appealability and to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal.                  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     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 Porter has not

made the requisite showing.       Accordingly, we deny a certificate of

appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss

the appeal.      We dispense with oral argument because the facts and




                                   - 2 -
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before

the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.



                                                        DISMISSED




                              - 3 -