UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-6983
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
LYDELL ROGERS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. William D. Quarles, Jr., District Judge.
(1:05-cr-00153-WDQ; 1:07-cv-00631-WDQ)
Submitted: February 28, 2008 Decided: March 3, 2008
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed in part; dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.
Lydell Rogers, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Lydell Rogers seeks to appeal the district court’s orders
denying relief on his motion filed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
60(b) challenging the validity of his criminal conviction, and
denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion for reconsideration. To
the extent that the court construed Rogers’ motion as one filed
under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000), and dismissed it without prejudice,
the orders are 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 Rogers has not
made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of
appealability and dismiss the appeal in part.
To the extent the court considered Rogers’ motion as a
Rule 60(b) motion and denied it and denied his Rule 59(e) motion,
we have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. We
- 2 -
therefore affirm these rulings. 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.
AFFIRMED IN PART;
DISMISSED IN PART
- 3 -