UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-6490
SCOTT TREMAYNE GRIFFIN,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District
Judge. (CR-99-68)
Submitted: July 27, 2005 Decided: August 5, 2005
Before KING, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Scott Tremayne Griffin, Appellant Pro Se. James Ashford Metcalfe,
Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Scott Tremayne Griffin 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 certificate of appealability
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 Griffin 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.
- 2 -
DISMISSED
- 3 -