Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Johney FREEMAN, Defendant- Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-09-03
Citations: 108 F. App'x 789
Docket Number: No. 04-6910
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Johney FREEMAN, Defendant— Appellant.
Judges: Before WIDENER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 108
Pages: 789–790

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Johney FREEMAN, Defendant— Appellant.
No. 04-6910.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Aug. 26, 2004.
Decided Sept. 3, 2004.
Johney Freeman, Appellant pro se. Robert Joseph Seidel, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before WIDENER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Johney Freeman seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) motion filed in his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) action. The court dismissed the action as successive. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000); Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 368-69 (4th Cir.2004) (holding that appeal from the denial of a Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) motion in a habeas action requires a certificate of appealability). 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, 336-38, 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 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Freeman has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability.
To the extent Freeman's notice of appeal and informal brief could be construed as a motion for authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion, we deny such authorization. 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