UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-6597
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
CHRISTOPHER ANDARYL WILLS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. William D. Quarles, Jr., District Judge.
(CR-99-52-WDQ; CA-02-119-WDQ)
Submitted: July 19, 2004 Decided: August 5, 2004
Before MICHAEL and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Christopher Andaryl Wills, Appellant Pro Se. Tarra R. DeShields-
Minnis, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Christopher Andaryl Wills seeks to appeal the district
court’s denial of his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion to reconsider
the denial of his motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). An appeal
may not be taken from the final order in a § 2255 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 § 2255 proceeding and thus requires a
certificate of appealability for appeal. Reid v. Angelone, 369
F.3d 363, 368-70 (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 Wills has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we
deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. To the
extent Wills’ notice of appeal and informal brief may be considered
a motion for authorization to file a successive motion under 28
U.S.C. § 2244 (2000), see United States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d 200
- 2 -
(4th Cir.), cert. denied, 124 S. Ct. 496 (2003), we conclude Wills
has not shown newly discovered evidence or a new rule made
retroactive on collateral review by the Supreme Court. Therefore,
we deny authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion. 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 -