Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Sean Jervitt HOPKINS, a/k/a Sean Jackson, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-04-30
Citations: 275 F. App'x 264
Docket Number: No. 08-6199
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Sean Jervitt HOPKINS, a/k/a Sean Jackson, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 275
Pages: 264–265

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Sean Jervitt HOPKINS, a/k/a Sean Jackson, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 08-6199.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: April 24, 2008.
Decided: April 30, 2008.
Sean Jervitt Hopkins, Appellant Pro Se. James Marton Trusty, Office of the United States Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.
Before KING and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Sean Jervitt Hopkins seeks to appeal the district court's order denying his Fed. R. Civ.P. 60(b) motion for reconsideration of the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2258(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 Hopkins 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.