Case Name: Jerry Adam HELMS, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. Patrick CONROY; Attorney General for the State of Maryland, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-11-29
Citations: 114 F. App'x 574
Docket Number: No. 04-7177
Parties: Jerry Adam HELMS, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. Patrick CONROY; Attorney General for the State of Maryland, Respondents-Appellees.
Judges: Before LUTTIG and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 114
Pages: 574–575

Head Matter:
Jerry Adam HELMS, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. Patrick CONROY; Attorney General for the State of Maryland, Respondents-Appellees.
No. 04-7177.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Nov. 18, 2004.
Decided: Nov. 29, 2004.
Jerry Adam Helms, Jr., Appellant pro se.
Ann Norman Bosse, Office of the Attorney General of Maryland, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.
Before LUTTIG and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Jerry Adam Helms, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) motion, in which he sought reconsideration of the district court's denial of his petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000); 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 Helms has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. To the extent Helms' notice of appeal and informal brief could be construed as a motion for authorization to file a second or successive § 2254 petition, we deny such authorization. See United States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d 200, 208 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 995, 124 S.Ct. 496, 157 L.Ed.2d 395 (2003). 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