UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-6974
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
JUANITA E. LAWSON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Newport News. Jerome B. Friedman,
District Judge. (4:99-cr-00055-JBF)
Submitted: October 31, 2006 Decided: November 6, 2006
Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed in part and affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.
Juanita E. Lawson, Appellant Pro Se. Timothy Richard Murphy,
Special Assistant United States Attorney, Newport News, Virginia,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Juanita E. Lawson seeks to appeal the district court’s
order denying relief on her motion for modification of her judgment
of conviction entered on September 12, 2000. To the extent that
the court construed Lawson’s motion as one filed under 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). 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 Lawson has not
made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of
appealability and dismiss the appeal.
To the extent the court considered Lawson’s motion as a
motion for reconsideration of the September 12, 2000, order
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b), we have reviewed the record and
find no reversible error. We therefore affirm. We dispense with
oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
- 2 -
adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument
would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED IN PART; AFFIRMED IN PART
- 3 -