Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. Lucien Antonio ROBERTS, a/k/a Lou, Defendant - Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-07-28
Citations: 103 F. App'x 519
Docket Number: No. 04-6864
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff — Appellee, v. Lucien Antonio ROBERTS, a/k/a Lou, Defendant — Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 103
Pages: 519–519

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff — Appellee, v. Lucien Antonio ROBERTS, a/k/a Lou, Defendant — Appellant.
No. 04-6864.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: July 14, 2004.
Decided: July 28, 2004.
Lucien Antonio Roberts, Appellant pro se.
Laura Marie Everhart, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Lucien Antonio Roberts seeks to appeal the district court's denial of his Fed. R.Civ.P. 60(b) motion to reconsider judgment. An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). The denial of a Rule 60(b) motion is the final order in a habeas proceeding and thus requires a certificate of appealability for appeal. Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 367-69 (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 Roberts 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