UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-7810
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ANTHONY MCQUEEN,
Defendant – Appellant.
No. 09-8143
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ANTHONY MCQUEEN,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior
District Judge. (1:04-cr-00257-CMH-1; 1:09-cv-00242-CMH)
Submitted: February 18, 2010 Decided: February 24, 2010
Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Anthony McQueen, Appellant Pro Se. Michelle C. Brice, OFFICE OF
THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
Anthony McQueen seeks to appeal the district court’s
orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.
2009) motion and Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for
reconsideration. The orders are not appealable unless a circuit
justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28
U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). 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) (2006). 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 McQueen has
not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny McQueen’s
motion and supplemental motion to place No. 09-7810 in abeyance
as moot, 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
3
before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
DISMISSED
4