UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-6753
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
JEROME WALDEN,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District
Judge. (CR-95-63; CA-03-77)
Submitted: September 15, 2004 Decided: October 19, 2004
Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jerome Walden, Appellant Pro Se. David John Novak, OFFICE OF THE
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Jerome Walden seeks to appeal the district court’s order
denying relief on his motion for reconsideration under Fed. R. Civ.
P. 60(b), following his unsuccessful motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255
(2000). An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a
habeas corpus proceeding 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, 370 (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 Walden has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we
deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. In
accordance with United States v. Winestock, 340 F.2d 200, 206-08
(4th Cir.), cert. denied, 124 S. Ct. 496 (2003), we have also
construed Walden’s notice of appeal and informal brief as an
application for authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion
under 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (2000). We deny such authorization because
- 2 -
Walden does not allege newly discovered evidence or a new rule of
constitutional law made retroactive to cases on collateral review
by the Supreme Court. Id. 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 -