Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Robert Lawrence PAYNE, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-06-16
Citations: 100 F. App'x 213
Docket Number: No. 03-6873
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Robert Lawrence PAYNE, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 100
Pages: 213–214

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Robert Lawrence PAYNE, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 03-6873.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted June 10, 2004.
Decided June 16, 2004.
Robert L. Payne, Appellant pro se. Thomas Jack Bondurant, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before WILLIAMS and TRAXLER, 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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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.
Robert L. Payne seeks to appeal the district court's order denying his motion to reconsider filed under Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The order is 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 Payne has not made the requisite showing. Ac cordingly, 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