Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Cedric Tyler NEWSOME, a/k/a Red, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-08-11
Citations: 286 F. App'x 44
Docket Number: No. 08-6785
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Cedric Tyler NEWSOME, a/k/a Red, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 286
Pages: 44–45

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Cedric Tyler NEWSOME, a/k/a Red, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 08-6785.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: July 31, 2008.
Decided: Aug. 11, 2008.
Cedric Tyler Newsome, Appellant Pro Se. William David Muhr, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Cedric Tyler Newsome seeks to appeal the district court's order denying his Fed. R.Civ.P. 60(b)(4) Motion for Relief from Judgment or Order and a subsequent order denying his motion for a certificate of appealability. The orders are not appeal-able 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 that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any disposi-tive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cock-rell, 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 Newsome has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Newsome's motion for a certificate of ap-pealability 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.