UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-6629
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
KELVIN TYRONE FIELDINGS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Newport News. Rebecca Beach Smith,
District Judge. (CR-03-78; CA-04-113-4)
Submitted: August 25, 2005 Decided: September 2, 2005
Before TRAXLER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Kelvin Tyrone Fieldings, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Calvin Moore,
Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Kelvin Tyrone Fieldings seeks to appeal from the district
court’s order denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255 (2000). The order is not appealable 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
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 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, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001).
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that
Fieldings has not made the requisite showing.
The only issue Fieldings asserts on appeal is that he did
not agree to dismiss in the district court a claim from his § 2255
motion. This court is not the appropriate forum in which to raise
this claim. Rather, under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b), a party may move
the district court for relief from a final judgment or order based
upon any reason justifying relief. Because Fieldings failed to
make a sufficient showing as to the claim raised on appeal and
failed to present any other issue, see 4th Cir. Local Rule 34(b),
- 2 -
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
- 3 -