US v. Cedric Newsome

Filing 920080811

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-6785

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. CEDRIC TYLER NEWSOME, a/k/a Red, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (2:04-cr-00093-RAJ-JEB-1; 2:06-cv-00165-RAJ-JEB)

Submitted:

July 31, 2008

Decided:

August 11, 2008

Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Cedric Tyler Newsome, Appellant Pro Se. William David Muhr, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM: Cedric Tyler Newsome seeks to appeal the district court's order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(4) Motion for Relief from Judgment or Order and a subsequent order denying his motion for a certificate of appealability. unless a circuit justice or The orders are not appealable judge issues a certificate of

appealability.

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000); Reid v. Angelone, A certificate of appealability

369 F.3d 363, 369 (4th Cir. 2004).

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 any 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, 68384 (4th Cir. 2001). conclude that we We have independently reviewed the record and has not made motion the for requisite a showing. of

Newsome deny

Accordingly,

Newsome's

certificate

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

- 2 -