Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-09-08043/USCOURTS-ca4-09-08043-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Michael Owen Harriot
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-8043

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

MICHAEL OWEN HARRIOT,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Columbia. Matthew J. Perry, Jr., Senior 

District Judge. (3:03-cv-03299-MJP)

Submitted: February 18, 2010 Decided: February 26, 2010

Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael Owen Harriot, Appellant Pro Se. Stacey Denise Haynes, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 09-8043 Doc: 10 Filed: 02/26/2010 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Michael Owen Harriot seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for 

reconsideration of the district 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. MillerEl 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 Harriot 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 

Appeal: 09-8043 Doc: 10 Filed: 02/26/2010 Pg: 2 of 3
3

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 09-8043 Doc: 10 Filed: 02/26/2010 Pg: 3 of 3