UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-7077
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
SLADE MILLER,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Richard L. Williams, Senior
District Judge. (CR-89-196-A; CA-97-676-AM)
Submitted: June 28, 2004 Decided: October 14, 2004
Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Slade Miller, Appellant Pro Se. William Neil Hammerstrom, Jr.,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Slade Miller seeks to appeal the district court’s order
denying relief on his motion filed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) in
his underlying 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) action. The order denying
Miller’s Rule 60(b) motion is not appealable 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
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 Miller 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
*
We have recently held that a certificate of appealability is
required when appealing from the denial of a Rule 60(b) motion in
a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 action. See Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363 (4th
Cir. 2004).
- 2 -