UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-6150
OSCAR A. ESCOBAR,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
RONALD J. ANGELONE,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior
District Judge. (CA-01-1663-AM)
Submitted: May 26, 2004 Decided: July 14, 2004
Before MOTZ, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Oscar A. Escobar, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Oscar A. Escobar seeks to appeal the district court’s
order denying Escobar’s motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b), in
which Escobar sought to vacate the district court’s order denying
his petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). The order is
appealable only if a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate
of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000); Reid v.
Angelone, ___ F.3d ___, ___, No. 03-6146, 2004 WL 1119646 at *4,
(4th Cir. May 19, 2004). 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 Escobar 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
*
We note that even if the Rule 60(b) motion was subject to the
“reasonable time” filing limit, rather than the one-year limit
applicable to motions under subsections (1), (2), and (3) of Rule
60(b), the underlying denial of Escobar’s § 2254 petition was not
debatable or wrong.
- 2 -
materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
DISMISSED
- 3 -