Case Name: Bernard KING, a/k/a Shaborn, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-07-23
Citations: 102 F. App'x 814
Docket Number: No. 04-6863
Parties: Bernard KING, a/k/a Shaborn, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant—Appellee.
Judges: Before MOTZ, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 102
Pages: 814–815

Head Matter:
Bernard KING, a/k/a Shaborn, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant—Appellee.
No. 04-6863.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: July 15, 2004.
Decided: July 23, 2004.
Bernard King, Appellant pro se.
Laura P. Tayman, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before MOTZ, KING, and GREGORY, 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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Bernard King seeks to appeal the district court's orders in his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) proceeding denying his motions filed under Rule 60(b) and Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The orders are not appealable 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 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 King 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