Filed: August 29, 2005
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-6185
(CR-98-47)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
ROBERT CY MANN,
Defendant - Appellant.
O R D E R
The court amends its opinion filed August 17, 2005, as
follows:
On the cover sheet, district judge information -- the name of
“Jerome B. Friedman” is deleted and is replaced with “Raymond A.
Jackson.”
For the Court - By Direction
/s/ Patricia S. Connor
Clerk
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-6185
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
ROBERT CY MANN,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District
Judge. (CR-98-47)
Submitted: July 27, 2005 Decided: August 17, 2005
Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Robert Cy Mann, Appellant Pro Se. Darryl James Mitchell, Special
Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Robert Cy Mann seeks to appeal the district court’s order
denying his motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). The order, which
derives from the denial of a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000),
is not appealable 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, 369 (4th Cir. 2004).
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 his
constitutional claims are 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 Mann has not made the requisite showing.
Accordingly we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the
appeal.
Additionally, we have determined that Mann’s self-styled
motion under Rule 59(e) is, in substance, a successive motion
attacking his conviction and sentence under § 2255. See United
States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d 200, 206-07 (4th Cir.), cert. denied,
540 U.S. 995 (2003). We therefore treat Mann’s notice of appeal
- 2 -
and appellate brief as a motion for authorization to file a
successive § 2255 motion, and deny such authorization. See id. at
208; 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b) (2000).
Finally, 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 -