Case ID: f-appx_714/html/0255-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Samuel MANNING, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 17-7046
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: February 28, 2018
    Decided: March 7, 2018
    Samuel Manning, Appellant Pro Se. Eric Matthew Hurt, Brian James Samuels, Assistant United States Attorneys, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Newport News, Virginia, for Appel-lee.
    Before KING and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
   Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Samuel Manning seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion, denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(c) motion to amend the § 2255 motion, and denying Manning’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motions to alter or amend judgment. The orders are not ap-pealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). 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) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). 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. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Manning has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, 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