UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-6016
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
ROBERT CY MANN,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 04-6223
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
ROBERT CY MANN,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District
Judge. (CR-98-47; CA-03-169-2)
Submitted: July 30, 2004 Decided: September 23, 2004
Before WIDENER, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Robert Cy Mann, Appellant Pro Se. Darryl James Mitchell, OFFICE OF
THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Robert Cy Mann seeks to appeal the district court’s
orders denying his motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000), and
construing Mann’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion as a § 2255 motion
and dismissing it as successive. The orders are not appealable
unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of
appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000); see Reid v.
Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 369 (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 Mann has not made the requisite showing.
Accordingly, we deny his motions for a certificate of appealability
and dismiss the appeals.
To the extent that Mann’s notice of appeal and appellate
brief with regard to the appeal of the denial of his Rule 60(b)
motion can be construed as a motion for authorization to file a
successive § 2255 motion, we deny such authorization. See United
- 3 -
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
- 4 -