Opinion
Cr. No. 6:93-160, C.A. No. 6:01-4326-HMH.
November 28, 2005
OPINION ORDER
This matter is before the court on Jimmy Lee Sadler's ("Sadler") request for a certificate of appealability. Sadler seeks to appeal the court's May 26, 2005, order ("May Order"). In the May Order, the court denied Sadler's motion under Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, in which Sadler sought reconsideration of the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. Sadler has filed a notice of appeal of the May Order and requests a certificate of appealability. After a thorough review of the facts and pertinent law, the court denies Sadler's request.
A circuit justice or a circuit or district judge must issue a certificate of appealability before a movant may appeal an order denying relief on a Rule 60(b) motion for reconsideration of a prior denial of a § 2255 motion. Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 375 (4th Cir. 2004). The movant must make a "substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right" for the court to issue a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2);Murphy v. Netherland, 116 F.3d 97, 99 (4th Cir. 1997). To obtain a certificate of appealability under § 2253(c), a § 2255 movant "must show that reasonable jurists could debate whether (or, for that matter, agree that) the petition should have been resolved in a different manner or that the issues presented were adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further." Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003), rev'd and remanded to Miller-El v. Dretke, 361 F.3d 849 (5th Cir. 2004), cert. granted, 542 U.S. 936 (2004), and rev'd and remanded by, 125 S.Ct. 2317 (U.S. 2005) (internal quotation marks omitted). If the court denies a motion for a certificate of appealability, the court must state the reasons for not issuing it. See Fed.R.App.P. 22(b)(1).
Sadler's claims are not debatable and could not be resolved in a different manner. Further, the issues presented are inadequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further. Accordingly, the court declines to issue a certificate of appealability.
Therefore, it is
ORDERED that Sadler's request for a certificate of appealability, document number 16, is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.