UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-6261
CHARLES E. BOYLES, JR.,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
GENE M. JOHNSON, Director of Prisons,
Respondent - Appellee,
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, Senior District
Judge. (7:05-cv-00075-JCT)
Submitted: April 20, 2006 Decided: April 26, 2006
Before MICHAEL, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Charles E. Boyles, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Steven Andrew Witmer,
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Charles E. Boyles, Jr., seeks to appeal the district
court’s order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for
reconsideration of the district court’s order denying relief on his
28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. The order is not appealable
unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of
appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000); 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 both that the district court’s assessment of the
constitutional claims is debatable or wrong and that any
dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also
debatable or wrong. 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 Boyles has not made the
requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Boyles’ motion for
appointment of counsel and his motion to proceed in forma pauperis,
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 -