United States v. Dixon , 353 F. App'x 812 ( 2009 )


Menu:
  •                               UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 09-7146
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    THOMAS D. DIXON,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    Maryland, at Baltimore.     Marvin J. Garbis, Senior District
    Judge. (1:00-cr-00563-MJG-1; 1:08-cv-00442-MJG)
    Submitted:    November 19, 2009             Decided:   December 2, 2009
    Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Thomas D. Dixon, Appellant Pro Se.          Jane Meadowcroft Erisman,
    Assistant United States Attorney,           Baltimore, Maryland, for
    Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Thomas D. Dixon 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.A. § 2255
     (West Supp. 2009) motion.                               The order is
    not    appealable      unless      a     circuit      justice       or   judge    issues    a
    certificate of appealability.                       
    28 U.S.C. § 2253
    (c)(1) (2006);
    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)         (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    Dixon       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
    2
    before   the   court   and   argument   would   not   aid   the   decisional
    process.
    DISMISSED
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 09-7146

Citation Numbers: 353 F. App'x 812

Filed Date: 12/2/2009

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/30/2014