United States of America v. Anthony Edward Zellner

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-6835
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
ANTHONY EDWARD ZELLNER,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District
Judge. (CR-99-164; CA-01-311-2)
Submitted: June 23, 2004 Decided: July 9, 2004
Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Anthony Edward Zellner, Appellant Pro Se. Laura P. Tayman,
Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).

-- 1 of 3 --

- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Anthony Edward Zellner seeks to appeal the district
court’s denial of his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion to reconsider
judgment. 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, F.3d , , 2004 WL 1119646, at
*4 (4th Cir. May 19, 2004) (No. 03-6146). 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 Zellner has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we
deny 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 of 3 --

- 3 -
DISMISSED

-- 3 of 3 --