UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-7177
JERRY ADAM HELMS, JR.,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
PATRICK CONROY; ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE STATE
OF MARYLAND,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Peter J. Messitte, District Judge. (CA-
02-68-PJM)
Submitted: November 18, 2004 Decided: November 29, 2004
Before LUTTIG and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jerry Adam Helms, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Ann Norman Bosse, OFFICE
OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for
Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Jerry Adam Helms, Jr., seeks to appeal the district
court’s order denying relief on his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion,
in which he sought reconsideration of the district court’s denial
of his petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). The order is not
appealable 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 (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 Helms has not made the
requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of
appealability and dismiss the appeal. To the extent Helms’ notice
of appeal and informal brief could be construed as a motion for
authorization to file a second or successive § 2254 petition, we
deny such authorization. See United States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d
200, 208 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 124 S. Ct. 496 (2003). We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions
- 2 -
are adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
- 3 -