UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-6220
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
MAURICE GREGORY,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Newport News. Robert E. Payne, District
Judge. (CR-92-163)
Submitted: September 22, 2004 Decided: October 19, 2004
Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Maurice Gregory, Appellant Pro Se. Laura Marie Everhart, Assistant
United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Maurice Gregory seeks to appeal the district court’s
order dismissing his motion for a writ of error as an unauthorized,
successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion and denying his motion
for reconsideration.1 An appeal may not be taken from the final
order in a § 2255 proceeding 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 for claims
addressed by a district court 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); see also Reid, 369 F.3d at
370 (applying the certificate of appealability requirement to
appeals of denials of motions for reconsideration). We have
independently reviewed the record and conclude that Gregory has not
made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of
1
By order filed April 5, 2004, this appeal was placed in
abeyance for Jones v. Braxton, No. 03-6891. In view of our recent
decision in Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363 (4th Cir. 2004), we no
longer find it necessary to hold this case in abeyance for Jones.
- 2 -
appealability and dismiss the appeal.2 We deny Gregory’s motions
for review of his claim pursuant to Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83
(1963). 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
To the extent this appeal could be construed as a motion for
authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion, see United States
v. Winestock, 340 F.3d 200 (4th Cir. 2003), we deny authorization.
- 3 -