UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-7919
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
TODD ANTONIO FOSTER,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Chief
District Judge. (CR-93-402; CA-01-995)
Submitted: April 27, 2005 Decided: May 26, 2005
Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Todd Antonio Foster, Appellant Pro Se. James L. Trump, OFFICE OF
THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Todd Antonio Foster seeks to appeal the district court’s
order denying relief on his motion filed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.
P. 60(b), seeking reconsideration of the denial of his 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255 (2000) motion. Because Foster’s motion did not assert a
defect in the collateral review process itself, but rather reargued
the merits of his § 2255 motion based on new case law, the district
court concluded that it did not constitute a true Rule 60(b) motion
under our decision in United States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d 200, 207
(4th Cir.), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 995 (2003). To appeal an order
denying a Rule 60(b) motion in a habeas action, Foster must
establish entitlement to a certificate of appealability. See
Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 368 (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, 336-38 (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 Foster has not made the requisite showing.
- 2 -
Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the
appeal.
To the extent that Foster’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. See
Winestock, 340 F.3d at 208. 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 -