Court Opinion

ID: 1026633
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-05 07:09:41.872671+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:29:13.587662
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                        FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                No. 08-6895

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                  Plaintiff - Appellee,

             v.

GERALD DAMONE HOPPER,

                  Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Martin K. Reidinger,
District Judge. (3:95-cr-00119-TW; 3:96-cv-00217-MR)

Submitted:    August 19, 2008              Decided:   September 10, 2008

Before NIEMEYER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Gerald Damone Hopper, Appellant Pro Se. Robert James Conrad, Jr.,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina,
for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

           Gerald Damone Hopper 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 Hopper 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

     *
      As an additional ground for denying relief, the district
court found that Hopper’s Rule 60(b) motion amounted to an
unauthorized second or successive § 2255 motion. Our review of
Hopper’s motion leads us to conclude that the motion was a true
Rule 60(b) motion.

                                 2
presented in the materials before the court and argument would not

aid the decisional process.

                                                        DISMISSED

                                3