United States v. Hopper , 291 F. App'x 501 ( 2008 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-6895
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
GERALD DAMONE HOPPER,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Martin K. Reidinger,
District Judge. (3:95-cr-00119-TW; 3:96-cv-00217-MR)
Submitted: August 19, 2008 Decided: September 10, 2008
Before NIEMEYER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Gerald Damone Hopper, Appellant Pro Se. Robert James Conrad, Jr.,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Gerald Damone Hopper 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 Hopper 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
*
As an additional ground for denying relief, the district
court found that Hopper’s Rule 60(b) motion amounted to an
unauthorized second or successive § 2255 motion. Our review of
Hopper’s motion leads us to conclude that the motion was a true
Rule 60(b) motion.
2
presented in the materials before the court and argument would not
aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3