Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Rodney GOODSON, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-09-21
Citations: 109 F. App'x 580
Docket Number: No. 03-7291
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Rodney GOODSON, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 109
Pages: 580–581

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Rodney GOODSON, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 03-7291.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Aug. 18, 2004.
Decided Sept. 21, 2004.
Rodney Goodson, Appellant pro se. Michael Lee Keller, Office of the United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Rodney Goodson, a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court's orders denying his Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) motion concerning the court's previous denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion, denying his motion for reconsideration, and denying a certificate of appealability. 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, 370 (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 Good-son 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
The district court accepted the findings and recommendation of a magistrate judge, and Goodson had not filed any objections to the magistrate judge's findings and recommendation.