The opinion
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-7620
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
WAYNE MARK BROWN,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 04-6211
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
WAYNE MARK BROWN,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Patrick Michael Duffy, Dennis W.
Shedd, District Judges. (CR-98-1126; CA-02-1434-0-23)
Submitted: June 23, 2004 Decided: August 13, 2004
Before LUTTIG and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
No. 03-7620 dismissed; No. 04-6211 affirmed by unpublished per
curiam opinion.
Wayne Mark Brown, Appellant Pro Se. Marshall Prince, OFFICE OF THE
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
In these consolidated appeals, Wayne Mark Brown seeks to
appeal the district court’s order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)
motion to reconsider the dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000)
motion (No. 03-7620), and the court’s order denying his motion to
reopen habeas proceedings (No. 04-6211). We first address the
denial of Brown’s motion to reconsider.
An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a
habeas corpus proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues
a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000).
The denial of a Rule 60(b) motion is the final order in a habeas
proceeding and thus requires a certificate of appealability for
appeal. 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 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 Brown has not made the requisite showing.
- 3 -
Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the
appeal in No. 03-7620.
We next consider the district court’s denial of Brown’s
motion to reopen habeas proceedings. We have reviewed the record
and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment
of the district court in No. 04-6211. See United States v. Brown,
No. CR-98-1126; CA-02-1434-0-23 (D.S.C. filed Sept. 8, 2003;
entered Sept. 9, 2003). 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.
No. 03-7620 DISMISSED;
No. 04-6211 AFFIRMED
- 4 -