Opinion
No. 06-3102.
Filed On: April 30, 2007.
BEFORE: Rogers, Brown, and Kavanaugh, Circuit Judges
ORDER
Upon consideration of the order to show cause filed November 20, 2006, and the response thereto, it is
ORDERED that the order to show cause be discharged. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that the district court's order filed June 6, 2006, denying appellant's motion for relief pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b), be affirmed with regard to appellant's argument that his 1996 motion for a new trial pursuant to Fed.R.Crim.P. 33 was improperly construed as a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. This issue was resolved in United States v. Campbell, 463 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2006), and that decision is the law of the case. See Crocker v. Piedmont Aviation, Inc., 49 F.3d 735, 739 (D.C. Cir. 1995). Appellant has not demonstrated that the decision in his prior appeal "is clearly erroneous and would work a manifest injustice." Arizona v. California, 460 U.S. 605, 619 n. 8 (1983). It is
FURTHER ORDERED that the remainder of this appeal be dismissed for lack of a certificate of appealability. Because appellant has not made "a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right," 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2), no certificate of appealability is warranted. See United States v. Vargas, 393 F.3d 172, 174-75 (D.C. Cir. 2004). It is
FURTHER ORDERED that the motion for appointment of counsel be dismissed as moot.
Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc.See Fed.R.App.P. 41(b); D.C. Cir. Rule 41.