Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Cyriacus AKAS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-08-05
Citations: 103 F. App'x 786
Docket Number: No. 04-6291
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Cyriacus AKAS, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 103
Pages: 786–786

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Cyriacus AKAS, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 04-6291.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: July 21, 2004.
Decided: Aug. 5, 2004.
Cyriacus Akas, Appellant pro se.
Robert Reeves Harding, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Before LUTTIG and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Cyriacus Akas, a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his motion filed under Fed. R.Civ.P. 60(b). The order is not appeal-able 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, 366 (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 find that Akas 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