Court Opinion

ID: 1024170
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-05 06:29:23.182707+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:27:00.839121
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 07-6930

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus

ALBERT SHAW NELSON,

                                              Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Orangeburg. Cameron McGowan Currie, District
Judge. (5:95-cr-00333-CMC; 5:99-cv-04168-CMC)

Submitted:   October 19, 2007             Decided:   November 8, 2007

Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Albert Shaw Nelson, Appellant Pro Se. Marvin Jennings Caughman,
Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

          Albert Shaw Nelson 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.

§ 2255 (2000) motion.   The order is 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 dispositive procedural ruling by

the district court is likewise debatable.      Miller-El v. Cockrell,

537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484

(2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001).

          We have independently reviewed the record and conclude

that Nelson has not made the requisite showing.        Accordingly, we

deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.           We

grant leave to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis and 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

                                - 2 -