Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Eric Pearson LEE, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-03-04
Citations: 122 F. App'x 641
Docket Number: No. 03-7925
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Eric Pearson LEE, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 122
Pages: 641–641

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Eric Pearson LEE, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 03-7925.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Feb. 24, 2005.
Decided: March 4, 2005.
Eric Pearson Lee, Appellant pro se.
Angela Hewlett Miller, Office of the United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and KING, 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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Eric Pearson Lee, a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(4) motions for relief from the district court's earlier judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a habeas proceeding 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, 370 (4th Cir.2004) (applying the COA requirement to appellate review of the denial of a Rule 60(b) motion). A certificate of appealability will not issue for claims addressed by a district court 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 both 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 Lee 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