UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-6153
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
CLARENCE D. COAKLEY,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at New Bern. Terrence W. Boyle,
District Judge. (CR-96-26))
Submitted: July 25, 2005 Decided: August 19, 2005
Before NIEMEYER and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Clarence D. Coakley, Appellant Pro Se. Jane J. Jackson, Assistant
United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Clarence D. Coakley seeks to appeal the district court’s
order denying relief on his motion filed under Fed. R. Civ. P.
60(b) challenging the denial of relief on Coakley’s earlier Rule 60
motion that the district court construed as a motion filed under 28
U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). 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); see Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 368-69 (4th Cir. 2004)
(holding that order denying Rule 60(b) relief in habeas setting is
final order in habeas proceeding and is subject to certificate of
appealability requirement of § 2253(c)). 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 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. 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 Coakley has not made the requisite showing.
Accordingly, we deny Coakley’s motion to vacate all orders
preventing him from filing a § 2255 motion, deny a certificate of
- 2 -
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
- 3 -