United States v. Shores

101 F. App'x 895
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided June 29, 2004·No. No. 03-7919·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Fred Shores, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his motion under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) to reopen his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) proceeding. Shores cannot appeal this order unless a circuit judge or justice issues a certificate of appealability. Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363 (4th Cir.2004). 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 habeas appellant meets 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, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir.2001).

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Shores has not [896]*896made 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

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

United States v. Shores, 101 F. App'x 895 (4th Cir. 2004).

101 F. App'x 895 (United States v. Shores) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Slack v. McDaniel
529 U.S. 473 (Supreme Court, 2000)
Miller-El v. Cockrell
537 U.S. 322 (Supreme Court, 2003)
Rose v. Lee
252 F.3d 676 (Fourth Circuit, 2001)
Juanita Pope Reid v. Ronald J. Angelone, Director
369 F.3d 363 (Fourth Circuit, 2004)