UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-6263
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
HUBERT RAMSEY,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L. Voorhees,
District Judge. (CR-95-5-V; CA-99-129-5-4-V)
Submitted: August 25, 2004 Decided: September 9, 2004
Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Hubert Ramsey, Appellant Pro Se. Brian Lee Whisler, Assistant
United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Hubert Ramsey seeks to appeal the district court’s order
denying relief on his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion filed in his
underlying 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) action. The district court
appears to have dismissed the action as successive. The order is
not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a
certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000);
Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 368-69 (4th Cir. 2004) (holding
that appeal from the denial of a Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion in a
habeas action requires a certificate of appealability). 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, 336-38 (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 Ramsey has not made the requisite showing.
Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the
appeal.
To the extent Ramsey’s notice of appeal and informal
brief could be construed as a motion for authorization to file a
- 2 -
successive § 2255 motion, we deny such authorization. United
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 -