066029.U

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-6029
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
DONALD WAYNE MELTON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Spartanburg. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District
Judge. (CR-00-490; CA-03-596)
Submitted: April 28, 2006 Decided: May 18, 2006
Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Donald Wayne Melton, Appellant Pro Se. Regan Alexandra Pendleton,
Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).

-- 1 of 3 --

- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Donald Wayne Melton seeks to appeal the district court’s
order denying relief on his motion filed under Fed. R. Civ. P.
60(b). To appeal an order denying a Rule 60(b) motion in a
postconviction proceeding, Melton must establish his entitlement to
a certificate of appealability. 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
the district court’s assessment of his constitutional claims is
debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by
the district court is likewise debatable. 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 Melton
has not made the requisite showing.
To the extent that Melton’s notice of appeal and informal
brief can be construed as a motion for authorization to file a
successive § 2255 motion, we deny such authorization. See United
States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d 200, 208 (4th Cir. 2003).
Accordingly, we deny Melton’s motion for a certificate of
appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

-- 2 of 3 --

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

-- 3 of 3 --