Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Greg Burnell KING, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-11-29
Citations: 155 F. App'x 689
Docket Number: No. 05-7247
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Greg Burnell KING, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 155
Pages: 689–689

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Greg Burnell KING, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 05-7247.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Nov. 17, 2005.
Decided: Nov. 29, 2005.
Greg Burnell King, Appellant Pro Se. James Ashford Metcalfe, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Greg Burnell King seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his motion filed pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b), seeking reconsideration of the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. To appeal an order denying a Rule 60(b) motion in a habeas action, King must establish entitlement to a certificate of appealability. See Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 368 (4th Cir.2004). A certificate of appeal-ability 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 the district court's assessment of his constitutional claims is 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 King 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