United States v. Hopkins , 275 F. App'x 264 ( 2008 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-6199
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
SEAN JERVITT HOPKINS, a/k/a Sean Jackson,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the United States
District Court of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr.,
District Judge. (8:99-cr-00224-AW-1; 8:04-cv-00162-AW)
Submitted: April 24, 2008 Decided: April 30, 2008
Before KING and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Sean Jervitt Hopkins, Appellant Pro Se. James Marton Trusty,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenbelt, Maryland, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Sean Jervitt Hopkins seeks to appeal the district court’s
order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for reconsideration
of the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255 (2000) motion. 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, 369 (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 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 Hopkins 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 -