United States v. Milton , 182 F. App'x 209 ( 2006 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 06-6329
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    GREGORY ALLEN MILTON,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
    District of Virginia, at Roanoke.    Samuel G. Wilson, District
    Judge. (7:00-cv-00031-SGW-GC; 5:95-cr-70074-SGW-1)
    Submitted: May 16, 2006                          Decided: May 24, 2006
    Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Gregory Allen Milton, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Jack Bondurant, Jr.,
    Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    PER CURIAM:
    Gregory A. Milton seeks to appeal the district court’s
    orders denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for reconsideration
    of the district court’s order denying his motion to amend his 
    28 U.S.C. § 2255
     (2000) motion, and denying his subsequent Fed. R.
    Civ. P. 59(e) motion.     The orders are 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 Milton 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: 06-6329

Citation Numbers: 182 F. App'x 209

Judges: Motz, Per Curiam, Traxler, Williams

Filed Date: 5/24/2006

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/7/2023