UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-6918
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
EDWARD DANE JEFFUS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Winston-Salem. N. Carlton Tilley,
Jr., Chief District Judge. (CR-92-184; CA-95-227-6)
Submitted: September 1, 2004 Decided: February 9, 2005
Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Cheryl Johns Sturm, Chadds Ford, Pennsylvania, for Appellant. Paul
Alexander Weinman, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro,
North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Edward Dane Jeffus seeks to appeal the district court’s
order denying relief on his self-styled, “Hazel-Atlas Action for
Relief from Order Denying Section 2255 Motion.” Jeffus argues the
motion is made under the savings clause of Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b).
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); Reid
v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363 (4th Cir. 2004) (holding the certificate
of appealability standard applies to appeals of denials of motions
under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)). 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 Jeffus has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we
deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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 -