Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Tony Alforenzo WALKER, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-07-30
Citations: 103 F. App'x 738
Docket Number: No. 03-7485
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Tony Alforenzo WALKER, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 103
Pages: 738–738

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Tony Alforenzo WALKER, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 03-7485.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: June 28, 2004.
Decided: July 30, 2004.
Tony Alforenzo Walker, Appellant pro se.
Paul Joseph McNulty, United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before KING and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Tony Alforenzo Walker seeks to appeal the district court's denial of his Fed. R.Civ.P. 60(b) motion to reconsider judgment. An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). The denial of a Rule 60(b) motion is the final order in a habeas proceeding and thus requires a certificate of appealability for appeal. Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 367-69 (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 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 Walker has not made the requisite showing because his Rule 60(b) motion was untimely filed. 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