UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-7121
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
SOLOMON DUKES, JR., a/k/a Junior,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge.
(CR-94-589; CA-99-1129)
Submitted: November 17, 2005 Decided: November 28, 2005
Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Solomon Dukes, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Robert Hayden Bickerton,
Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Solomon Dukes, Jr., a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal
the district court’s order denying his motion for reconsideration
of its earlier order dismissing his motion to recall judgment
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) as a successive motion 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); see Jones v. Braxton, 392 F.3d 683 (4th Cir.
2004); Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363 (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). This standard is satisfied by demonstrating
that reasonable jurists would find the district court’s assessment
of Dukes’ constitutional claims 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 Dukes has not made the requisite showing.
Accordingly, 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
- 2 -