UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-6236
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JESSIE YARBOROUGH,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Anderson. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (8:05-cr-00809-GRA-2; 8:07-cv-70142-GRA)
Submitted: July 30, 2009 Decided: August 4, 2009
Before MOTZ, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jessie Yarborough, Appellant Pro Se. Deborah Brereton Barbier,
Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina,
William Jacob Watkins, Jr., OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jessie Yarborough seeks to appeal the district court’s
order denying his motion for reconsideration of the court’s
order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2009)
motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or
judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(1) (2006); Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 369 (4th
Cir. 2004). 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) (2006). 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 Yarborough has not made the requisite
showing. Accordingly, we deny Yarborough’s motion for
transcripts at government expense, 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