UNPUBLISHED
`
`UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
`FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
`
`
`No. 21-7316
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
`
`
`
`
`
`GREGORY A. MILTON, a/k/a G,
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff - Appellee,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`Defendant - Appellant.
`
`
`Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at
`Harrisonburg. Michael F. Urbanski, Chief District Judge. (5:95-cr-70074-MFU-1)
`
`
`
`
`Submitted: June 28, 2022
`
`
`
`Decided: June 30, 2022
`
`
`
`Before NIEMEYER and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit
`Judge.
`
`
`Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
`
`
`
`
`Gregory A. Milton, Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer R. Bockhorst, Assistant United States
`Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Abingdon, Virginia, for
`Appellee.
`
`
`
`
`Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
`
`
`
`

`

`PER CURIAM:
`
`Gregory A. Milton seeks to appeal the district court’s orders (a) granting in part and
`
`denying in part Milton’s authorized, successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion; and
`
`(b) adjudicating Milton’s postjudgment motions filed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) and
`
`60(b). The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of
`
`appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B); see generally United States v. McRae, 793
`
`F.3d 392, 400 & n.7 (4th Cir. 2015). 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). When
`
`the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by
`
`demonstrating that reasonable jurists could find the district court’s assessment of the
`
`constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v. Davis, 137 S. Ct. 759, 773-74 (2017).
`
`When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate
`
`both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable and that the motion states a
`
`debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134,
`
`140-41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)).
`
`We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Milton has not made
`
`the requisite showing.∗ Accordingly, although we grant Milton’s motion to supplement his
`
`
`∗ Milton correctly asserts that the district court erroneously dismissed his request for
`Rule 60(b) relief as a successive and unauthorized § 2255 motion because, in that motion,
`Milton challenged the integrity of the § 2255 proceedings; therefore, this was a “true” Rule
`60(b) motion. See McRae, 793 F.3d at 397. In any event, Milton’s Rule 60(b) motion
`nonetheless fails to state a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right.
`Specifically, the record conclusively establishes that the mandatory, consecutive life
`sentence imposed on Milton’s 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) conviction resulted from application of
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`informal brief, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense
`
`with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
`
`materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
`
`
`
`DISMISSED
`
`
`then-operative 18 U.S.C. § 924(i)(1)—not the challenged “three-strikes” designation under
`18 U.S.C. § 3559(c).
`
`
`
`3
`
`