US v. Robert Phillips

Filing 920091123

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-7106

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ROBERT EDWARD PHILLIPS, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry Coke Morgan, Jr., Senior District Judge. (2:03-cr-00103-HCM-TEM-1)

Submitted:

November 17, 2009

Decided:

November 23, 2009

Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robert Edward Phillips, Appellant Pro Se. Kevin Michael Comstock, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM: Robert Edward Phillips 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.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2009) motion. not appealable unless a circuit justice or The order is issues a

judge

certificate of appealability. Reid v. Angelone, of 369 F.3d

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006); 363, will 369 not (4th issue Cir. 2004). "a

A certificate

appealability

absent

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. by § 2253(c)(2) (2006). that A prisoner satisfies would this find

standard

demonstrating

reasonable

jurists

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, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the

record and conclude that Phillips has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability We dispense with oral argument because

and dismiss the appeal.

the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the

2

materials

before

the

court

and

argument

would

not

aid

the

decisional process. DISMISSED

3