UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-7485
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
TONY ALFORENZO WALKER,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry Coke Morgan, Jr., District
Judge. (CR-93-84; CA-98-1415-2)
Submitted: June 28, 2004 Decided: July 30, 2004
Before KING and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Tony Alforenzo Walker, Appellant Pro Se. Paul Joseph McNulty,
United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Tony Alforenzo Walker seeks to appeal the district
court’s denial of his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion to reconsider
judgment. 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).
The denial of a Rule 60(b) motion is the final order in a habeas
proceeding and thus requires a certificate of appealability for
appeal. Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 367-69 (4th Cir. 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 Walker has not made the requisite showing because his Rule
60(b) motion was untimely filed. Accordingly, we deny a
certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense
with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
- 2 -
adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument
would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
- 3 -