UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-7596
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
JERON RONDELL RANDALL,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at New Bern. Malcolm J. Howard,
District Judge. (CR-95-58-H, CA-00-150-4-H)
Submitted: March 31, 2003 Decided: June 4, 2003
Before MICHAEL and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jeron Rondell Randall, Appellant Pro Se. Rudolf A. Renfer, Jr.,
Assistant United States Attorney, Robert Edward Skiver, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Jeron Rondell Randall appeals the district court’s order
denying his Rule 60(b) motion. Here, the district court construed
Randall’s motion as a successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion,
stating in its order that it lacked jurisdiction to consider it
because Randall’s previous § 2255 motion and a motion to
reconsider, rejected by the court and affirmed on appeal, raised
identical issues as those presented in his current rule 60(b)
motion. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that
Randall has not demonstrated that reasonable jurists would find the
district court’s assessment of his constitutional claims, or the
court’s procedural rulings, debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v.
Cockrell, U.S. , 123 S. Ct. 1029, 2003 WL 431659, at *10
(U.S. Feb. 25, 2003) (No. 01-7662); see also Slack v. McDaniel, 529
U.S. 473, 484 (2000). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of
appealability and dismiss the appeal. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)
(2000). 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