United States v. Hall ( 2005 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-6929
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
JESUS HALL, a/k/a Weedy, a/k/a Jesse Hail,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. (CR-
97-365; CA-05-1393)
Submitted: September 27, 2005 Decided: October 3, 2005
Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jesus Hall, Appellant Pro Se. Christine Manuelian, OFFICE OF THE
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Jesus Hall seeks to appeal the district court’s order
denying relief on his motion filed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
60(b), seeking reconsideration of the denial of his 28 U.S.C. §
2255 (2000) motion. Because Hall’s motion did not assert a defect
in the collateral review process itself, but rather reargued the
merits of his § 2255 motion based on new case law, the motion was
properly characterized a successive § 2255 motion under our
decision in United States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d 200, 207 (4th Cir.
2003). To appeal an order denying a Rule 60(b) motion in a habeas
action, Hall must establish entitlement to a certificate of
appealability. See Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 368 (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 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 Hall has not made the requisite showing.
- 2 -
Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and
dismiss the appeal. To the extent that Hall’s notice of appeal and
informal brief could be construed as a motion for authorization to
file a successive § 2255 motion, we deny such authorization. See
Winestock, 340 F.3d at 208. 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 -