Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ryan O'Neil LITTLE, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-03-11
Citations: 123 F. App'x 113
Docket Number: No. 04-7890
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Ryan O’Neil LITTLE, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before WILLIAMS, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 123
Pages: 113–114

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Ryan O’Neil LITTLE, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 04-7890.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 23, 2005.
Decided March 11, 2005.
Ryan O’Neil Little, Appellant pro se. Robert James Conrad, Jr., Office of the United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before WILLIAMS, GREGORY, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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.
Ryan O'Neil Little, a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court's order denying reconsideration under Fed. R. Civ.P. 60(b) of the court's prior order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2258(c)(1) (2000); see Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 368-69, 374 n. 7 (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 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, 336-38, 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 Little 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