UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-7637

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

COREY JOSEPH LYONS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Wheeling. Frederick P. Stamp, Jr., District Judge. (CR-98-29)

Submitted: January 5, 2005 Decided: January 21, 2005

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Corey Joseph Lyons, Appellant Pro Se. Robert H. McWilliams, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM:

Corey Joseph Lyons seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying relief on his motion filed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.

P. 60(b). Because Lyons’ motion did not assert a defect in the

collateral review process itself, but rather directly attacked his

conviction and sentence, it did not constitute a true Rule 60(b)

motion under our decision in United States v. Winestock,

(4th Cir.), cert. denied,

(2003). To appeal

an order denying a Rule 60(b) motion in a habeas action, Lyons must

establish entitlement to a certificate of appealability. See Reid

v. Angelone,

(4th Cir. 2004).

A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.”

(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,

(2003);

Slack v. McDaniel,

(2000); Rose v. Lee,

(4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the

record and conclude that Lyons has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the

appeal.

- 2 - To the extent Lyons’ notice of appeal and informal brief

could be construed as a motion for authorization to file a

successive § 2255 motion, we deny such authorization. Winestock,

. 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

- 3 -