United States v. Lucas , 141 F. App'x 169 ( 2005 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 04-6654
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    REGINALD LUCAS,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief
    District Judge. (CR-01-205)
    Submitted:   February 25, 2005            Decided:   August 17, 2005
    Before NIEMEYER, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed in part; dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam
    opinion.
    Reginald Lucas, Appellant Pro Se. Rudolf A. Renfer, Jr., Assistant
    United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    PER CURIAM:
    Reginald Lucas, a federal prisoner, appeals the district
    court’s order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion* and
    dismissing his action filed pursuant to the Freedom of Information
    Act (FOIA).         Lucas also seeks to appeal a separate district court
    order denying relief on his motion filed under 
    28 U.S.C. § 2255
    (2000).
    An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a
    § 2255 proceeding 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 for claims addressed by
    a district court 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    both   that   the   district    court’s     assessment    of   his
    constitutional          claims     is   debatable       or   wrong   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-
    38 (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 Lucas has not made the
    requisite          showing.       Accordingly,     we    deny   a    certificate    of
    *
    The motion did not seek relief from any civil judgment, but
    rather was an attack on Lucas’ drug conviction. Lucas filed the
    motion before he filed his § 2255 action.
    - 2 -
    appealability and dismiss the appeal from the denial of the § 2255
    motion.
    Because   Lucas   did   not    raise   his     FOIA    claim   in   his
    informal brief to this court, the issue is waived.                   See 4th Cir.
    Local   R.   34(b).     Further,     in    Lucas’   valid    and    binding      plea
    agreement, he waived his right to bring the FOIA claim as well as
    the claim he raised in his Rule 60(b) motion.                      We accordingly
    affirm the district court’s order denying the FOIA request and the
    Rule 60(b) motion.       The motion to compel the district court to
    state its reason for denying a certificate of appealability and
    the “Motion to Subtract Supplement Brief” are denied.                 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.
    AFFIRMED IN PART;
    DISMISSED IN PART
    - 3 -
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 04-6654

Citation Numbers: 141 F. App'x 169

Judges: Gregory, King, Niemeyer, Per Curiam

Filed Date: 8/17/2005

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/7/2023