Court Opinion

ID: 1019044
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 22:29:34.56057+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:18:13.821728
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 05-7864

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus

JOSE LUIS ACEVEDO,

                                            Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior
District Judge. (CR-92-427; CA-97-2080)

Submitted: March 30, 2006                   Decided: April 10, 2006

Before TRAXLER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jose Luis Acevedo, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas More Hollenhorst,
Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Jose Luis Acevedo, a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal

the district court’s order denying his motion filed under Fed. R.

Civ. P. 60(b), in which he sought reconsideration of the court’s

order denying as untimely his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255

(2000).    The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or

judge     issues   a   certificate    of     appealability.    28    U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(1) (2000). 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

the district court’s assessment of his constitutional claims is

debatable or wrong 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, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001).

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Acevedo

has not made the requisite showing.              Accordingly, we deny a

certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.                We deny

Acevedo’s motion for abeyance as moot 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 -