US v. Nelson

Filing 920071108

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-6930

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ALBERT SHAW NELSON, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Orangeburg. Cameron McGowan Currie, District Judge. (5:95-cr-00333-CMC; 5:99-cv-04168-CMC)

Submitted:

October 19, 2007

Decided:

November 8, 2007

Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Albert Shaw Nelson, Appellant Pro Se. Marvin Jennings Caughman, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM: Albert Shaw Nelson seeks to appeal the district court's order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for reconsideration of the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit 28 U.S.C.

justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability.

§ 2253(c)(1) (2000); Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 369 (4th Cir. 2004). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent "a 28

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). demonstrating that

A prisoner satisfies this standard by jurists would find that any

reasonable

assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. 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, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Nelson has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we We

deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.

grant leave to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis and 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 - 2 -