Sims v. Murray ( 2005 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-6390
RAYMOND BILLY SIMS,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
EDWARD MURRAY,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (CA-94-393-AVB)
Submitted: July 27, 2005 Decided: August 4, 2005
Before KING, GREGORY and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Raymond Billy Sims, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Drummond Bagwell,
Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Raymond Billy Sims seeks to appeal from the district
court’s order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion in which he
asserted errors in the district court’s June 1994 order denying his
28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition and July 1995 order denying his
Rule 60(b) motion. Sims also appeals from the district court’s
order denying his motion to amend his Rule 60(b) motion. The
orders are 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, 370 (4th Cir. 2004) (applying the
certificate of appealability requirement to appellate review of the
denial of a Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion). 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 the district court’s assessment of his
constitutional claims is debatable or wrong 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, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently
reviewed the record and conclude that Sims has not made the
requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of
appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral
- 2 -
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 -