Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Thomas D. DIXON, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-12-02
Citations: 353 F. App'x 802
Docket Number: No. 09-7146
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Thomas D. DIXON, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 353
Pages: 802–803

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Thomas D. DIXON, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 09-7146.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Nov. 19, 2009.
Decided: Dec. 2, 2009.
Thomas D. Dixon, Appellant Pro Se. Jane Meadowcroft Erisman, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Thomas D. Dixon 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.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2009) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006); 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) (2006). 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 dispos-itive 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 Dixon 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 ma terials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED.