UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-6827
DANIEL LEE BROWN,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
RONALD ANGELONE, Director,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior
District Judge. (CA-02-716-3)
Submitted: September 16, 2004 Decided: September 22, 2004
Before LUTTIG, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Daniel Lee Brown, Appellant Pro Se. John H. McLees, Jr., OFFICE OF
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Daniel Lee Brown seeks to appeal the district court’s order
denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion to reconsider a previous
order denying relief on his 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); Reid v. Angelone,
369 F.3d 363 (4th Cir. 2004) (holding the certificate of
appealability standard applies to denials of motions under Fed. R.
Civ. P. 60(b)). 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 Brown has not made the requisite showing.
Accordingly, we 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
- 2 -