US v. McLoyd
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus LUTHER J. MCLOYD, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Greenville. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (4:94-cr-00070-BO-16; 4:06-cv-00009-BO)
March 22, 2007
March 28, 2007
Before WIDENER and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Luther J. McLoyd, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM: Luther J. McLoyd seeks to appeal the district court's order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for reconsideration of its denial of McLoyd's 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). A
certificate of appealability will not issue absent "a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." § 2253(c)(2) (2000). that A prisoner satisfies would that this 28 U.S.C. standard that by his
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); Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 371 (4th Cir. 2004); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that McLoyd has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we
deny McLoyd's motion for 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.
- 2 -
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?