United States v. Shores , 101 F. App'x 893 ( 2004 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-7919
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
FRED SHORES, JR.,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. C. Weston Houck, Senior District
Judge. (CR-93-93; CA-97-1063-4-12)
Submitted: May 26, 2004 Decided: June 29, 2004
Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Fred Shores, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Alfred William Walker Bethea,
Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Fred Shores, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s
order denying relief on his motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) to
reopen his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) proceeding. Shores cannot
appeal this order unless a circuit judge or justice issues a
certificate of appealability. Reid v. Angelone, __ F.3d __, 2004
WL 1119646 (4th Cir. May 19, 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 habeas
appellant meets 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 Shores 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