Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Abdullah Rasool SHAKOOR, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-02-25
Citations: 367 F. App'x 475
Docket Number: No. 09-8060
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Abdullah Rasool SHAKOOR, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 367
Pages: 475–476

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Abdullah Rasool SHAKOOR, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 09-8060.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Feb. 8, 2010.
Decided: Feb. 25, 2010.
Abdullah Rasool Shakoor, Appellant Pro Se. Steve R. Matheny, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Abdullah Rasool Shakoor seeks to appeal the district court's order denying his Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) motion for reconsideration of the court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2009) motion and denying his motion to recuse. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of ap-pealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006); 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) (2006). 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 dispositive 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 Shakoor 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.