Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Hilton THOMAS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-04-24
Citations: 275 F. App'x 190
Docket Number: No. 07-6757
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Hilton THOMAS, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 275
Pages: 190–190

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Hilton THOMAS, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 07-6757.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: March 14, 2008.
Decided: April 24, 2008.
Hilton Thomas, Appellant Pro Se. Jamie M. Bennett, Robert Reeves Harding, Assistant United States Attorneys, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Hilton Thomas seeks to appeal the district court's orders denying his Fed. R.Civ.P. 60(b) motions for reconsideration of the district court's previous order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. The orders are 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, 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) (2000). 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. Cock-rell, 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 Thomas 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.