Case Name: Charles E. BOYLES, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. Gene M. JOHNSON, Director of Prisons, Respondent-Appellee, Commonwealth of Virginia, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-04-26
Citations: 178 F. App'x 210
Docket Number: No. 06-6261
Parties: Charles E. BOYLES, Jr., Petitioner—Appellant, v. Gene M. JOHNSON, Director of Prisons, Respondent—Appellee, Commonwealth of Virginia, Respondent—Appellee.
Judges: Before MICHAEL, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 178
Pages: 210–211

Head Matter:
Charles E. BOYLES, Jr., Petitioner—Appellant, v. Gene M. JOHNSON, Director of Prisons, Respondent—Appellee, Commonwealth of Virginia, Respondent—Appellee.
No. 06-6261.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: April 20, 2006.
Decided: April 26, 2006.
Charles E. Boyles, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Steven Andrew Witmer, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.
Before MICHAEL, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Charles E. Boyles, Jr., 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. § 2254 (2000) petition. The order is 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 both that the district court's assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 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, 683-84 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Boyles has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Boyles' motion for appointment of counsel and his motion to proceed in forma pauperis, 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.