United States v. Akas , 104 F. App'x 333 ( 2004 )


Menu:
  •                              UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 04-6291
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    CYRIACUS AKAS,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, District Judge. (CR-
    91-0305-JFM)
    Submitted:   July 21, 2004                 Decided:   August 5, 2004
    Before LUTTIG and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
    Circuit Judge.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Cyriacus Akas, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Reeves Harding, Assistant
    United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    PER CURIAM:
    Cyriacus Akas, a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal the
    district court’s order denying relief on his motion filed under
    Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b).     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
    , 366
    (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 find that Akas 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: 04-6291

Citation Numbers: 104 F. App'x 333

Filed Date: 8/5/2004

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/17/2021