UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-6359
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
TIMOTHY ADAMS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District
of North Carolina, at Winston-Salem. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., Chief
District Judge. (6:94-cr-00302-NCT)
Submitted: June 22, 2006 Decided: June 30, 2006
Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Timothy Adams, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Francis Joseph, Assistant
United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Timothy Adams seeks to appeal the district court’s order
accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and 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. § 2255 (2000) motion.
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 that any assessment of the constitutional claims
by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive
procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable.
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 Adams has not made the requisite showing.
Accordingly, we deny Adams’ motion for appointment of counsel, 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 -