Whether the district court erred in denying a Rule 60(b) motion to reopen a final judgment denying habeas corpus relief, where the denial of the Rule 60(b) motion is appealable as a separate final order

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED. a a Bann nn re nn ah th nme ni ___-COHE THER Bee a ——--) “IN RESAMING The Cracust SeLEr HIGHLEGHTED By THES COURT IN ——US5H,535 07 (a008) AND Buick vDaves AS LXeLLAS THE TnTaaCracury DEBsTE — AnD _UNCERTAENTY IN LEGHT OF HARB SON v. BELL 556115 \80)83 (ned) Thss's Court SHOULD Exaip THAT IT _ ——-TS_ContTanay To THE Plata TexT AND STRATGHTFORWARD BEADENGOF IRUSCGIISAO TO Regus A —— CERTLEIATE OF ApteaL ABrizry CcoW’)"To Appeal THe DesiTAl.of A‘Taue FED.A.CIv.e bol Motion, LJHERES (A TheTrue. Rule. Gol. Motion ot Tssue Heres Challenge $$. Only d. Procedural Buling of The Molbeas Court for “oy : an <. DA eR , . ——-~— Subiitoince. or effreck Assert or Renssert o. Federal Basis For Relicé com Te Linesling Conviction,and, * oa , ett Pi a . : DT Vistvick Courts over Denying the bolOMotion nang tee Squased 0S O Final Order For Which : __._isposes of 0, Proceeding Challenging The Loufulness OF te*Pehitionexs Dekention T+ Ts Merely An Order = Refusing To Reopen The Tudgment, See and Coihive Goiezaist y Seay beer ce DiptoF Cone, SEbFASII53 999300 NMccZ008)_—_ dissenting te tniea BORN oy ~~ ris bt appeais nave ae ee as ra inalfGetisions ofitherdistrict courts."28 — eae a USC. § 1291.-Aiitigant faced wilh anunte avorable may make a timely appeat oe of that judgment and may-aiso {ilé-a/Rulé 60(b) motion for relief with the district court either before or ~ ——~—= = after filing his appeal; See"StorieW SINS1514U:S:-386, 401, 415 S. Ct. 1537, 1847, 131 L. Ed. 2d as ee 465 (1995). "The denial. of the (Rule{60(6}} motion is appealable as a separate final order... ." Id. : _ Thus, an order adjudicating addition to a final judgment adjudicating the case ~ _—_—_--——a8 a whole, a me oe "_* Although our appéllate jurisdiction extends to all-final decisions, § 2253's COA requirement does not. . _— Asa téxtual matter, § 2253 requires a’ COM tolappeal only-one final order in a habeas‘corpus * nies = proceeding, not all orders, Sée-28 U.S.C 3§ 2253(¢)(1) (providing that the COA requirement{2004 I . U.S. App. LEXIS 138) applies to “ihe fie Oat in proceedings attacking state or federal ° : _ convictions or sentences (emphasis added) mae Fa Te FO os ——_~-—-_—_. In. habeas cases involving more than. one-appealable order:.such as orders disposing, of Rule 60(b) : "motions or other postjudgment motions, § 2253's requirement. of a COA as to the appealofjustone t 77 E>==—— final order clearly extends to the petitioner's efforts iit any, to-appeal: the court's final judgment eg _ ., denying him habeas relief. The district court's judgmenton, the habéds petition.is seemihgly'the only ae : . “final decision” that could deny the petitioner's constitutional challenge to his conviction or sentence. ~~~ Therefore, that judgment is the only decision that § 2253(c)(2)’seems to address; it is the only final wid uuu.’ Order that could serve as the basis for the pétitioner's "substahtial showing of the denialofa . =r ot i constitutional righi{,]" the showing he must make to obtain the COA. In contrast to judgments denying eee vvevewewnnemm—~ habeas relief, final orders denying a Rule 60(b) motion do not adjudicate a constitutional challenge:to ~~... F cewcswun.., the movant's conviction or sentence. They simply state that the district court will not exercise its : discretion to set aside the finat judgment it entered. 23 ~— __ . This point is discussed at length in Part IV, infra. 108 — ™ {2004 U.S. App. LEXIS 739} 1 agree with ihe majority's statement that the word "the" can sometimes 9“ ~--~ terwermeeo—ees be read in the plural. In certain circumstances, singular terms can be construed in the plural. See 1 ce teen "U.S.C. § 1 ("Unless the context indicates otherwise[,] words importing the singular include and apply ~~ to several persons, parties, or things .. . .”). “But obviously this rule is not one to be applied except Vans vot. where it is necessary to carry out the evident intent of the statute." First Nat'| Bank in St. Louis v. vee . Mis