Court Opinion

ID: 1020763
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 22:56:06.200755+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:06:00.141056
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 06-6174

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus

NATHAN LEE FOSTER, a/k/a Plum,

                                              Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.    James C. Fox, Senior
District Judge. (CR-03-319-F; CA-05-553-5-F)

Submitted:   September 22, 2006           Decided:   October 17, 2006

Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Nathan Lee Foster, Appellant Pro Se.     Winnie Jordan Reaves,
Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Nathan Lee Foster seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying relief on his motion for reconsideration pursuant to

Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b), of the denial of 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, 367-69 (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 Foster 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 -