Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. Errol Anthony LLOYD, Defendant - Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-03-31
Citations: 124 F. App'x 803
Docket Number: No. 05-6054
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff — Appellee, v. Errol Anthony LLOYD, Defendant — Appellant.
Judges: Before WIDENER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 124
Pages: 803–804

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff — Appellee, v. Errol Anthony LLOYD, Defendant — Appellant.
No. 05-6054.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: March 24, 2005.
Decided: March 31, 2005.
Errol Anthony Lloyd, Appellant pro se.
Thomas More Hollenhorst, Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before WIDENER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Errol Anthony Lloyd, a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court's order construing his Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) motion as an unauthorized successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion and dismissing the motion. An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(e)(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 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 Lloyd 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