Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-07-06850/USCOURTS-ca4-07-06850-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Ernest Bailey
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-6850

ERNEST BAILEY,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. Marvin J. Garbis, Senior District Judge.

(1:00-cr-00152-MJG; 1:07-cv-00149-MJG)

Submitted: April 17, 2008 Decided: April 21, 2008

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ernest Bailey, Appellant Pro Se. Lynne Ann Battaglia, A. David

Copperthite, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore,

Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 07-6850 Doc: 13 Filed: 04/21/2008 Pg: 1 of 3
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Ernest Bailey 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. § 2255

(2000) motion and construing that motion as a § 2255 motion and

dismissing it without prejudice. Bailey also seeks to appeal the

district court’s subsequent orders denying his motion to alter or

amend judgment and his motion for a certificate of appealability.

The orders are not appealable unless 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 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 Bailey 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

Appeal: 07-6850 Doc: 13 Filed: 04/21/2008 Pg: 2 of 3
- 3 -

presented in the materials before the court and argument would not

aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 07-6850 Doc: 13 Filed: 04/21/2008 Pg: 3 of 3