Court Opinion

ID: 1018713
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 22:24:25.164668+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:36:47.780144
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 05-7663

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus

MICHAEL ANTHONY MCDONALD,

                                            Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham. William L. Osteen, District
Judge. (CR-95-266; CA-05-277-1)

Submitted: February 23, 2006                    Decided: March 6, 2006

Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael Anthony McDonald, Appellant Pro Se. Angela Hewlett Miller,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina,
for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

               Michael Anthony McDonald seeks to appeal the district

court’s order denying relief on his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(4) motion

to reconsider a prior order denying relief on 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    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 McDonald 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 -