UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-6122
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
JEROME WALDEN,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, Chief
District Judge. (CR-95-63)
Submitted: May 20, 2005 Decided: September 7, 2005
Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jerome Walden, Appellant Pro Se. David John Novak, OFFICE OF THE
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Jerome Walden seeks to appeal the district court’s order
denying relief on his motion under Fed. R. Civ P. 60(b) following
denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. 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, 370 (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 Walden has not made the requisite showing.
Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the
appeal.
In accordance with United States v. Winestock, 340 F.2d
200, 206-08 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 124 S. Ct. 496 (2003), we
have also construed Walden’s notice of appeal and informal brief as
an application for authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion
under 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (2000). We deny such authorization because
- 2 -
Walden does not allege newly discovered evidence or a new rule of
constitutional law made retroactive to cases on collateral review
by the Supreme Court. Id.
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 -