303 FAPPX 162 - United States v. Simon

                              UNPUBLISHED

                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                        FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                              No. 08-8056


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                  Plaintiff – Appellee,

             v.

STALIN SIMON,

                  Defendant – Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Charleston.    David A. Faber,
District Judge. (2:07-cv-00408-DAF)


Submitted:    December 11, 2008            Decided:   December 18, 2008


Before NIEMEYER, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Stalin Simon, Appellant Pro Se.       Charles T. Miller,        United
States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Stalin        Simon   seeks    to      appeal    the     district    court’s

order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and

denying relief on his

28 U.S.C. § 2255

 (2000) motion and order

denying his motion to reconsider under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e).

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    Simon       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