Court Opinion

ID: 1015350
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 21:31:49.877033+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:17:26.142783
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 04-7468

ELIJAH WHITE,

                                             Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                              Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston.   Patrick Michael Duffy, District
Judge. (CA-03-397-2-23)

Submitted:   January 27, 2005             Decided:   February 3, 2005

Before LUTTIG and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Elijah White, Appellant Pro Se.     Miller Williams Shealy, Jr.,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, South Carolina,
for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

          Elijah White seeks to appeal the district court’s order

denying relief on his motion filed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) in

his underlying 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) action.            The order denying

White’s Rule 60(b) motion is not appealable 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 (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, 336-38 (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 White 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 -