UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-6330
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
CRAIG LAMONT SCOTT,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. (CR-
95-202-HNM, CA-03-1957-CCB)
Submitted: July 19, 2004 Decided: August 10, 2004
Before LUTTIG and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Craig Lamont Scott, Appellant Pro Se. Jefferson McClure Gray,
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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Craig Lamont Scott seeks to appeal the district court’s
order denying relief on his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion to alter
or amend its order dismissing his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255 (2000) as untimely. A Rule 59(e) motion should be granted
in only one of three circumstances: “(1) to accommodate an
intervening change in controlling law; (2) to account for new
evidence not available at trial; or (3) to correct a clear error of
law or prevent manifest injustice.” Pac. Life Ins. Co. v. Am.
Nat’l Fire Ins. Co., 148 F.3d 396, 403 (4th Cir. 1998). This Court
reviews the denial of a Rule 59(e) motion for an abuse of
discretion. Dennis v. Columbia Colleton Med. Ctr., Inc., 290 F.3d
639, 653 (4th Cir. 2002). Scott’s Rule 59(e) motion extends
appellate review to the underlying denial of habeas relief.
Sawyer v. Atl. Discount Corp., 442 F.2d 349, 351 (4th Cir. 1971).
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). 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
- 2 -
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 Scott’s § 2255 motion was clearly untimely. Accordingly, he
has not made the requisite showing for issuance of a certificate of
appealability. We further find no abuse of discretion in the
district court’s denial of Scott’s Rule 59(e) motion. We thus 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 materials before the court and argument
would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
- 3 -