United States v. McQueen

366 F. App'x 471

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED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

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 Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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