Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Gregory Allen MILTON, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-05-24
Citations: 182 F. App'x 209
Docket Number: No. 06-6329
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Gregory Allen MILTON, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 182
Pages: 209–210

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Gregory Allen MILTON, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 06-6329.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted May 16, 2006.
Decided May 24, 2006.
Gregory Allen Milton, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Jack Bondurant, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Gregory A. Milton seeks to appeal the district court's orders denying his Fed. R.Civ.P. 60(b) motion for reconsideration of the district court's order denying his motion to amend his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion, and denying his subsequent Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) motion. The orders are not appealable 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, 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) (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 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 Milton 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