Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Solomon DUKES, Jr., a/k/a Junior, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-11-28
Citations: 155 F. App'x 672
Docket Number: No. 05-7121
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Solomon DUKES, Jr., a/k/a Junior, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 155
Pages: 672–672

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Solomon DUKES, Jr., a/k/a Junior, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 05-7121.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Nov. 17, 2005.
Decided: Nov. 28, 2005.
Solomon Dukes, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Robert Hayden Biekerton, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Solomon Dukes, Jr., a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court's order denying his motion for reconsideration of its earlier order dismissing his motion to recall judgment pursuant to Fed.R.CivP. 60(b) as a successive motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (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 Jones v. Braxton, 392 F.3d 683 (4th Cir.2004); 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). This standard is satisfied by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find the district court's assessment of Dukes' constitutional claims 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 Dukes 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