Case Name: Frank M. CONNELL, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. Ronald J. ANGELONE, Director of the Department of Corrections, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-08-18
Citations: 104 F. App'x 366
Docket Number: No. 03-6535
Parties: Frank M. CONNELL, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. Ronald J. ANGELONE, Director of the Department of Corrections, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 104
Pages: 366–366

Head Matter:
Frank M. CONNELL, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. Ronald J. ANGELONE, Director of the Department of Corrections, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 03-6535.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: July 21, 2004.
Decided: Aug. 18, 2004.
Frank M. Connell, Jr., Appellant pro se.
Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Frank M. Connell, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court's order denying as untimely his motion for relief from judgment, filed pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b). 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(c)(1) (2000). The certificate of appealability requirement applies to an order denying a motion under Rule 60(b). See Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363 (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 conclude that Connell 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