United States v. Scates , 193 F. App'x 236 ( 2006 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-6648
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
DAVID M. SCATES,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, District
Judge. (3:98-cr-00087-REP; 3:06-cv-00086-REP)
Submitted: July 25, 2006 Decided: August 3, 2006
Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
David M. Scates, Appellant Pro Se. Stephen Wiley Miller, OFFICE OF
THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
David M. Scates seeks to appeal the district court’s
order treating his “Motion to Correct Criminal Judgment and Motion
to Correct Error Arising From Oversight” as a successive 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255 (2000) motion and dismissing it on that basis, and a
subsequent order denying his motion for reconsideration. The
orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues
a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). 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 Scates 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 -