United States of America v. Braxton, No. 03-6891. In view of our recent decision in Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d…

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-7261
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
RAUL LABOY,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Greenville. Terrence W. Boyle,
Chief District Judge. (CR-91-87-4-BO; CA-97-69-4-BO)
Submitted: July 28, 2004 Decided: September 8, 2004
Before WILKINSON and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Raul LaBoy, Appellant Pro Se. Jane H. Jolly, OFFICE OF THE UNITED
STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).

-- 1 of 3 --

*By order filed March 5, 2004, this appeal was placed in
abeyance for Jones v. Braxton, No. 03-6891. In view of our recent
decision in Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363 (4th Cir. 2004), we no
longer find it necessary to hold this case in abeyance for Jones.
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Raul LaBoy seeks to appeal the district court’s orders
dismissing his motion for a bill of review that sought to modify
his sentence and denying reconsideration. The district court
construed LaBoy’s pleading as a motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255
(2000), and dismissed it as successive, noting that LaBoy had 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 LaBoy has not made the
requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of
appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral

-- 2 of 3 --

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

-- 3 of 3 --