[go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd
Upload
32 views3 pages

United States v. Melton, 4th Cir. (2006)

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Donald Wayne Melton's appeal of the district court's denial of his motion for relief under Rule 60(b). The court determined that Melton did not make the requisite showing to receive a certificate of appealability, as he did not demonstrate that reasonable jurists would debate the district court's assessment of his constitutional claims or any procedural rulings. The court also denied authorization for Melton to file a successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion, as his notice of appeal and brief did not satisfy the standards for such authorization. Therefore, the court dismissed Melton's appeal.

Uploaded by

Scribd Government Docs
Copyright
© Public Domain
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF or read online on Scribd
32 views3 pages

United States v. Melton, 4th Cir. (2006)

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Donald Wayne Melton's appeal of the district court's denial of his motion for relief under Rule 60(b). The court determined that Melton did not make the requisite showing to receive a certificate of appealability, as he did not demonstrate that reasonable jurists would debate the district court's assessment of his constitutional claims or any procedural rulings. The court also denied authorization for Melton to file a successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion, as his notice of appeal and brief did not satisfy the standards for such authorization. Therefore, the court dismissed Melton's appeal.

Uploaded by

Scribd Government Docs
Copyright
© Public Domain
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 3

UNPUBLISHED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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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).

PER CURIAM:
Donald Wayne Melton seeks to appeal the district courts
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 courts 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 Meltons notice of appeal and informal
brief can be construed as a motion for authorization to file a
successive 2255 motion, we deny such authorization.
States

v.

Accordingly,

Winestock,
we

deny

340

F.3d

Meltons

200,

208

(4th

motion

for

appealability and dismiss the appeal.

See United

Cir.

2003).

certificate

of

We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

- 2 -

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

DISMISSED

- 3 -

You might also like