UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-7655
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ROBERT PETER RUSSELL,
Defendant – Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior
District Judge. (1:91-cr-00056-AVB-1; 1:93-cv-01036-JCC)
Submitted: May 26, 2011 Decided: May 31, 2011
Before KING, SHEDD, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Robert Peter Russell, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Edward Rich,
Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Robert Peter Russell seeks to appeal the district
court’s order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(d)(3) motion to
reopen judgment in his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2010)
proceedings, and a subsequent order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P.
59 motion to alter or amend judgment and his Fed. R. Civ. P.
60(b)(4) motion. The orders are not appealable unless a circuit
justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28
U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (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). When the
district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies
this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would
find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional
claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473,
484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38
(2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural
grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive
procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a
debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack,
529 U.S. at 484-85. We have independently reviewed the record
and conclude that Russell has not made the requisite showing.
Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss
the appeal. We further deny Russell’s motion to remand the case
2
for an evidentiary hearing, and we dismiss as moot his motion to
expedite our decision on that motion. 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
3