United States v. Ramsey

108 F. App'x 789

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-6263

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

HUBERT RAMSEY,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L. Voorhees, District Judge. (CR-95-5-V; CA-99-129-5-4-V)

Submitted: August 25, 2004 Decided: September 9, 2004

Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Hubert Ramsey, Appellant Pro Se. Brian Lee Whisler, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM:

Hubert Ramsey seeks to appeal the district court’s order

denying relief on his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion filed in his

underlying 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) action. The district court

appears to have dismissed the action as successive. The order is

not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a

certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000);

Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 368-69 (4th Cir. 2004) (holding

that appeal from the denial of a Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion in a

habeas action requires a certificate of appealability). 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) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his

constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive

procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or

wrong. See 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 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the

record and conclude that Ramsey has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the

appeal.

To the extent Ramsey’s notice of appeal and informal

brief could be construed as a motion for authorization to file a

- 2 - successive § 2255 motion, we deny such authorization. United

States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d 200, 208 (4th Cir.), cert. denied,

124 S. Ct. 496 (2003). 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 -