Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Scott Tremayne GRIFFIN, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-12-23
Citations: 118 F. App'x 735
Docket Number: No. 04-7427
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Scott Tremayne GRIFFIN, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before MICHAEL, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 118
Pages: 735–736

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Scott Tremayne GRIFFIN, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 04-7427.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Dec. 16, 2004.
Decided: Dec. 23, 2004.
Scott Tremayne Griffin, Appellant pro se.
Laura P. Tayman, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before MICHAEL, KING, and SHEDD, 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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Scott Tremayne Griffin seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his motion to reconsider under Fed. R.Civ.P. 60(b), filed in his underlying 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) action. 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, 368-69 (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, 336-38, 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 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Griffin 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