Court Opinion

ID: 1015779
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 21:38:39.941624+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:31:32.335438
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                              No. 05-6054

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus

ERROL ANTHONY LLOYD,

                                              Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, District
Judge. (CR-96-463-A; CA-00-1176-AM)

Submitted:   March 24, 2005                 Decided:   March 31, 2005

Before WIDENER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Errol Anthony Lloyd, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

              Errol Anthony Lloyd, a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal

the district court’s order construing his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)

motion as an unauthorized successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion

and dismissing the motion.        An appeal may not be taken from the

final order in a habeas corpus proceeding 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

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 Lloyd 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 -