Case ID: f-appx_102/html/0354-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Oscar A. ESCOBAR, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Ronald J. ANGELONE, Respondent—Appellee.
    No. 04-6150.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: May 26, 2004.
    Decided: July 14, 2004.
    Oscar A. Escobar, Appellant pro se.
    Before MOTZ, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
   PER CURIAM:

Oscar A. Escobar seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying Escobar’s motion under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b), in which Escobar sought to vacate the district court’s order denying his petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). The order is appeal-able only if a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000); 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) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Escobar 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 
      
       We note that even if the Rule 60(b) motion was subject to the "reasonable time” filing limit, rather than the one-year limit applicable to motions under subsections (1), (2), and (3) of Rule 60(b), the underlying denial of Escobar’s § 2254 petition was not debatable or wrong.