UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-7213

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

MARQUISE D. CARTER, a/k/a Marqise Carter, a/k/a Maruise Carter,

Defendant – Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior District Judge. (1:07-cr-00288-CMH-1; 1:09-cv-00503-CMH)

Submitted: October 20, 2009 Decided: October 27, 2009

Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, NIEMEYER, Circuit Judge, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Marquise D. Carter, Appellant Pro Se. Jack Hanly, Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, Olivia Rose Hussey, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Marquise D. Carter seeks to appeal the district

court’s orders denying relief on his

(West

Supp. 2009) motion and his subsequent motion for

reconsideration. The orders are not appealable unless a circuit

justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability.

(c)(1) (2006). A certificate of appealability will

not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a

constitutional right.”

(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,

(2003); Slack v. McDaniel,

(2000);

Rose v. Lee,

(4th Cir. 2001). We have

independently reviewed the record and conclude that Carter has

not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we grant Carter’s

motion to consolidate his appeal of the district court’s orders,

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