Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Anthony Lewis GLENN, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-09-16
Citations: 292 F. App'x 222
Docket Number: No. 08-6453
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Anthony Lewis GLENN, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 292
Pages: 222–222

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Anthony Lewis GLENN, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 08-6453.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Sept. 11, 2008.
Decided: Sept. 16, 2008.
Anthony Lewis Glenn, Appellant Pro Se. Jane J. Jackson, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Ap-pellee.
Before WILKINSON and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Anthony Lewis Glenn seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) motion for reconsideration of the denial of 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. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). 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 dispos-itive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. 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, 683-84 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Glenn has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We deny Glenn's motion for relief. 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.