UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-6704
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
PHILIP MURPH, a/k/a Phillip Murph, a/k/a
Philip Murphy, a/k/a Phil,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. W. Earl Britt, Senior
District Judge. (CR-94-36-BR)
Submitted: August 30, 2004 Decided: October 27, 2004
Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Philip Murph, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Edward Skiver, Assistant
United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Philip Murph seeks to appeal the district court’s order
denying relief on his motion to reconsider under Fed. R. Civ. P.
60(b), filed in his underlying 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) action. The
order is not appealable 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, 368-69 (4th Cir. 2004) (holding
that appeal from the denial of a Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion in a
habeas action requires a certificate of appealablity). 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 Murph has not made the requisite showing.
To the extent Murph’s notice of appeal and informal brief
could be construed as a motion for authorization to file a
successive § 2255 motion, we deny such authorization. United
States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d 200, 208 (4th Cir.), cert. denied,
124 S. Ct. 496 (2003). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of
- 2 -
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
- 3 -