UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-6358
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
ROSARIO A. FIORANI, JR.,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior
District Judge. (CR-98-340)
Submitted: September 17, 2004 Decided: November 22, 2004
Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Rosario A. Fiorani, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. G. David Hackney,
Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Rosario A. Fiorani, Jr., appeals a district court’s order
construing his “Motion for Reversal of Unconstitutional Conviction
on Ineffective Assistance of Counsel, Prosecutorial and Judicial
Misconduct, and Brady Violations” as a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000)
motion, and dismissing it as successive, noting that Fiorani has
not obtained authorization from this court to file such a motion.
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 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, 338 (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 Fiorani has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we
deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss this appeal. We
*
See Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 367-70 (4th Cir. 2004)
(holding that order denying relief under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) in
a habeas setting is “the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding”
subject to the certificate of appealability requirement of 28
U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2000)).
- 2 -
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 -