UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-7925

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

ERIC PEARSON LEE,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. James A. Beaty, Jr., District Judge. (CR-98-282)

Submitted: February 24, 2005 Decided: March 4, 2005

Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Eric Pearson Lee, Appellant Pro Se. Angela Hewlett Miller, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Eric Pearson Lee, a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal the

district court’s order denying relief on his Fed. R. Civ. P.

60(b)(4) motions for relief from the district court’s earlier

judgment denying his

(2000) motion. An appeal may

not be taken from the final order in a habeas proceeding unless a

circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability.

(c)(1) (2000); Reid v. Angelone,

(4th Cir. 2004) (applying the COA requirement to appellate review

of the denial of a Rule 60(b) motion). 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.”

(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner

satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists

would find both 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 Lee 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

- 2 - presented in the materials before the court and argument would not

aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

- 3 -