United States v. Henry , 117 F. App'x 875 ( 2004 )


Menu:
  •                               UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 04-7215
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    ALTON R. HENRY, a/k/a Bajo,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, District
    Judge. (CR-00-150-2; CA-01-528-2)
    Submitted:   December 16, 2004            Decided:   December 21, 2004
    Before MICHAEL, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Alton Henry, Appellant Pro Se. Laura Marie Everhart, Assistant
    United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    PER CURIAM:
    Alton Henry, a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal the
    district court’s order construing his motion filed under Fed. R.
    Civ. P. 60(b) as a second or successive motion under 
    28 U.S.C. § 2255
     (2000), and dismissing it for lack of jurisdiction.                        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
    , 368-69, 374 n.7 (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 (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     Henry   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 -
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 04-7215

Citation Numbers: 117 F. App'x 875

Filed Date: 12/21/2004

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/18/2021