                               UNPUBLISHED

                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                        FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                               No. 08-8529


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                  Plaintiff - Appellee,

             v.

JORGE PETTER,

                  Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District
Judge. (2:06-cr-00162-RAJ-JEB-1; 2:08−cv−00373−RAJ)


Submitted:    April 16, 2009                 Decided:   April 24, 2009


Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Jorge Petter, Appellant Pro Se. Laura Marie Everhart, Assistant
United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

               Jorge       Petter    seeks      to    appeal      the    district       court’s

order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2008)

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).                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 Petter 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
