United States of America v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 367-70 4th Cir. 2004 holding that

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-6547
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
AUDLEY CASANOVA, a/k/a Robert King,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Winston-Salem. Frank W. Bullock,
Jr., District Judge. (CR-95-108; CA-04-106-1)
Submitted: August 9, 2004 Decided: August 27, 2004
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Audley Casanova, Appellant Pro Se. Clifton Thomas Barrett,
Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).

-- 1 of 3 --

*See Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 367-70 (4th Cir. 2004)
(holding that order denying relief under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) in
a habeas setting is “the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding”
subject to the certificate of appealability requirement of 28
U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2000)).
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Audley Casanova appeals a district court’s order
accepting a magistrate judge’s recommendation to construe his
“motion to supplement” as a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion and
dismissing it as successive, noting that Casanova has not obtained
authorization from this court to file such a motion. An appeal may
not be taken from the final order in a § 2255 proceeding 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.” 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, 338
(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 Casanova has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we
deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss this appeal. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions

-- 2 of 3 --

- 3 -
are adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED

-- 3 of 3 --