United States v. Greenfield

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
United States v. Greenfield, 120 F. App'x 977 (4th Cir. 2005)

United States v. Greenfield

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-7494

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

TYRONE IGNATIUS GREENFIELD,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CR-93-123)

Submitted: January 27, 2005 Decided: February 3, 2005

Before LUTTIG and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Tyrone Ignatius Greenfield, Appellant Pro Se. Kenneth E. Melson, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Tyrone Ignatius Greenfield seeks to appeal the district

court’s order denying relief on his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion

for reconsideration of his conviction, which was construed as an

untimely

28 U.S.C. § 2255

(2000) motion. The order is not

appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate

of appealability.

28 U.S.C. § 2253

(c)(1) (2000); see Reid v.

Angelone,

369 F.3d 363

(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 the district court’s assessment of his

constitutional claims is 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, 336-38

(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 Greenfield 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

Reference

Status
Unpublished