Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-07-07593/USCOURTS-ca4-07-07593-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Darren L. Keys
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-7593

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

DARREN L. KEYS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge.

(1:98-cr-00144-CCB; 1:07-cv-02049-CCB)

Submitted: January 17, 2008 Decided: January 28, 2008

Before TRAXLER, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Darren L. Keys, Appellant Pro Se. Harvey Ellis Eisenberg,

Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 07-7593 Doc: 12 Filed: 01/28/2008 Pg: 1 of 2
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Darren L. Keys seeks to appeal the district court’s order

denying, as successive, his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion, and

marginal order denying his motion to reconsider under Fed. R. Civ.

P. 60(b)(6). 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 Keys 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

Appeal: 07-7593 Doc: 12 Filed: 01/28/2008 Pg: 2 of 2