Case Name: Charles M. ANDERSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. G.K. WASHINGTON, Warden, Buckingham Correctional Center, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-08-12
Citations: 104 F. App'x 327
Docket Number: No. 03-7946
Parties: Charles M. ANDERSON, Petitioner—Appellant, v. G.K. WASHINGTON, Warden, Buckingham Correctional Center, Respondent—Appellee.
Judges: Before MICHAEL and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 104
Pages: 327–327

Head Matter:
Charles M. ANDERSON, Petitioner—Appellant, v. G.K. WASHINGTON, Warden, Buckingham Correctional Center, Respondent—Appellee.
No. 03-7946.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted July 28, 2004.
Decided Aug. 12, 2004.
Charles M. Anderson, Appellant pro se.
Before MICHAEL and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Charles Michael Anderson appeals a district court's order denying his Fed. R.Civ.P. 60(b) motion to void judgment and construing it as a successive 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2254 proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). 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 disposi-tive 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 Anderson has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.
To the extent Anderson's notice of appeal and informal brief could be construed as a motion for authorization to file a successive § 2254 petition, we deny such authorization. See United States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d 200, 208 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 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
See Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 370 (4th Cir.2004) (holding certificate of appealability is required to review denial of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) motion).