UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-7946
CHARLES M. ANDERSON,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
G. K. WASHINGTON, Warden, Buckingham
Correctional Center,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior
District Judge. (CA-03-1149-AM)
Submitted: July 28, 2004 Decided: August 12, 2004
Before MICHAEL and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Charles M. Anderson, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Charles Michael Anderson appeals a district court’s order
denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion to void judgment and
construing it as a successive 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. An
appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2254 proceeding
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 for claims addressed by a district
court 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 both 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 Anderson has not made the
requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of
appealability and dismiss the appeal.
To the extent Anderson’s notice of appeal and informal
brief could be construed as a motion for authorization to file a
successive § 2254 petition, we deny such authorization. See United
*
See Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 370 (4th Cir. 2004)
(holding certificate of appealability is required to review denial
of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) motion).
- 2 -
States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d 200, 208 (4th Cir.), cert. denied,
124 S. Ct. 496 (2003). 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 -