Court Opinion

ID: 1019489
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 22:36:12.851045+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:17:30.068685
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 06-6034

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus

MARK WAYNE THIBEAU,

                                            Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Richard L. Voorhees,
Chief District Judge. (CR-98-126-V; CA-00-610-3-1V)

Submitted: May 16, 2006                          Decided: May 22, 2006

Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Mark Wayne Thibeau, Appellant Pro Se.     Douglas Scott Broyles,
Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:

               Mark Wayne Thibeau, a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal

the district court order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion

to reconsider his underlying 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion.                       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); 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 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

(2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee,

252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001).              We have independently reviewed

the record and conclude that Thibeau 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

                                        - 2 -