UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-6654
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
REGINALD LUCAS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief
District Judge. (CR-01-205)
Submitted: February 25, 2005 Decided: August 17, 2005
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed in part; dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.
Reginald Lucas, Appellant Pro Se. Rudolf A. Renfer, Jr., 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Reginald Lucas, a federal prisoner, appeals the district
court’s order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion* and
dismissing his action filed pursuant to the Freedom of Information
Act (FOIA). Lucas also seeks to appeal a separate district court
order denying relief on his 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). 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 both that the district court’s assessment of his
constitutional claims is debatable or wrong 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 Lucas has not made the
requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of
*
The motion did not seek relief from any civil judgment, but
rather was an attack on Lucas’ drug conviction. Lucas filed the
motion before he filed his § 2255 action.
- 2 -
appealability and dismiss the appeal from the denial of the § 2255
motion.
Because Lucas did not raise his FOIA claim in his
informal brief to this court, the issue is waived. See 4th Cir.
Local R. 34(b). Further, in Lucas’ valid and binding plea
agreement, he waived his right to bring the FOIA claim as well as
the claim he raised in his Rule 60(b) motion. We accordingly
affirm the district court’s order denying the FOIA request and the
Rule 60(b) motion. The motion to compel the district court to
state its reason for denying a certificate of appealability and
the “Motion to Subtract Supplement Brief” are denied. 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.
AFFIRMED IN PART;
DISMISSED IN PART
- 3 -