United States of America v. Lorenzo Adderly

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-6788
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
LORENZO ADDERLY,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior
District Judge. (3:95-cr-00074-RLW; 3:07-cv-00194-RLW)
Submitted: September 13, 2007 Decided: September 19, 2007
Before GREGORY and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Lorenzo Adderly, Appellant Pro Se. Stephen Wiley Miller, OFFICE OF
THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Lorenzo Adderly seeks to appeal the district court’s
orders denying: (1) 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, and (2) his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e)
motion for reconsideration of that order. The orders are not
appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate
of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000); Reid v. Angelone,
369 F.3d 363, 369 (4th Cir. 2004). 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 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 Adderly 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

-- 2 of 3 --

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

-- 3 of 3 --