UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-6335
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
HARRY L. DANTZLER,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South
Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge. (CR-331;
CA-03-2809)
Submitted: June 23, 2005 Decided: June 30, 2005
Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Harry L. Dantzler, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Rhett DeHart, Assistant
United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina; John Michael
Barton, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Harry L. Dantzler seeks to appeal the district court’s order
denying his motion to reconsider a prior order denying relief on his 28
U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. An appeal may not be taken from the final
order in a habeas 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, 370 (4th Cir. 2004) (applying the COA
requirement to appellate review of the denial of a Fed. R. Civ. P.
60(b) motion). A certificate of appealability will not issue for
claims addressed by a district court 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 the district court’s assessment of his
constitutional claims is 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 Dantzler
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 are adequately
presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid
the decisional process.
DISMISSED
- 2 -