UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-7987
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ORION ROSS HARDEN, a/k/a Clyde Ross Hardin, a/k/a Martel
Ross Harden, a/k/a Fillgoode Smith, a/k/a Orion Matel, a/k/a
Ronald Blackwell, a/k/a Martell Smith, a/k/a Monte Williams,
a/k/a Norman Simmons,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Charlottesville. James C. Turk, Senior
District Judge. (3:97-cr-70099-jct-mfu-1; 3:09-cv-80193-jct-mfu)
Submitted: April 22, 2010 Decided: April 27, 2010
Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and KING and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Orion Ross Harden, Appellant Pro Se. Donald Ray Wolthuis,
Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Orion Ross Harden seeks to appeal the district court’s
order denying relief on his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for
reconsideration of the denial of his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West
Supp. 2009) motion. The order is 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 Harden has
not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we 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