UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-6951
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
PASCUAL SALAS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District
Judge. (CR-98-166, CA-99-748-3)
Submitted: October 17, 2003 Decided: November 4, 2003
Before WIDENER, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Pascual Salas, Appellant Pro Se. John Staige Davis, V, OFFICE OF
THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Pascual Salas seeks to appeal the district court’s order
denying relief on his motion to reconsider filed under Fed. R. Civ.
P. 60(b). The district court properly construed the Rule 60(b)
motion as a successive action under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). See
United States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d 200 (4th Cir. 2003), petition
for cert. filed, U.S.L.W. , (U.S. Sept. 23, 2003) (No.
03-6548). Rather than seek authorization from this court to file
a successive § 2255 motion, Salas appealed the denial of the Rule
60(b) 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). 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, , 123 S. Ct.
1029, 1040 (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 Salas has not
made the requisite showing. Neither has Salas presented grounds to
merit authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion. See 28
U.S.C. §§ 2244(a), 2255 ¶ 8. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of
2
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
3