United States v. Harden

375 F. App'x 340

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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