Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Clarence D. COAKLEY, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-08-19
Citations: 145 F. App'x 410
Docket Number: No. 05-6153
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Clarence D. COAKLEY, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 145
Pages: 410–412

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Clarence D. COAKLEY, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 05-6153.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: July 25, 2005.
Decided: Aug. 19, 2005.
Clarence D. Coakley, Appellant Pro Se. Jane J. Jackson, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before NIEMEYER 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Clarence D. Coakley seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his motion filed under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) challenging the denial of relief on Coakley's earlier Rule 60 motion that the district court construed as a motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2255 proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000); see Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 368-69 (4th Cir.2004) (holding that order denying Rule 60(b) relief in habeas setting is final order in habeas proceeding and is subject to certificate of appealability requirement of § 2253(c)). 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 the district court's assessment of his constitutional claims is debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. 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 Coakley has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Coakley's motion to vacate all orders preventing him from filing a § 2255 motion, 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