Case Name: Daniel Lee BROWN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Ronald ANGELONE, Director, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-09-22
Citations: 109 F. App'x 599
Docket Number: No. 04-6827
Parties: Daniel Lee BROWN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Ronald ANGELONE, Director, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before LUTTIG, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 109
Pages: 599–600

Head Matter:
Daniel Lee BROWN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Ronald ANGELONE, Director, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 04-6827.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Sept. 16, 2004.
Decided: Sept. 22, 2004.
Daniel Lee Brown, Appellant pro se.
John H. McLees, Jr., Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before LUTTIG, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Daniel Lee Brown seeks to appeal the district court's order denying his Fed. R.Civ.P. 60(b) motion to reconsider a previous order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2254 proceeding 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 (4th Cir.2004) (holding the certificate of appealability standard applies to denials of motions under Fed. R.Civ.P. 60(b)). 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 Brown has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealabihty 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