UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-7251
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
ENRIQUE ALFONSO GAYLE,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Robert G. Doumar, Senior
District Judge. (CR-90-105)
Submitted: December 16, 2005 Decided: December 30, 2005
Before WILKINSON and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Enrique Alfonso Gayle, Appellant Pro Se. Laura Marie Everhart,
Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Enrique Alfonso Gayle, a federal prisoner, seeks to
appeal the district court’s orders dismissing his motions filed
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) and Fed. R. Crim. P. 35(a)
seeking to raise Sixth Amendment claims as second or successive
motions under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). The orders are 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). A prisoner satisfies this
standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find the
district court’s assessment of his 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 Gayle 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.
- 2 -
DISMISSED
- 3 -