Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-14-07431/USCOURTS-ca4-14-07431-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 510
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Vacate Sentence
Cause of Action: 

---

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-7431

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

GARY RICHARD LACKEY,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L. 

Voorhees, District Judge. (5:11-cr-00052-RLV-1; 5:14-cv-00054-

RLV)

Submitted: January 22, 2015 Decided: January 27, 2015

Before SHEDD and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.*

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Gary Richard Lackey, Appellant Pro Se. Steven R. Kaufman, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

 * The opinion is filed by a quorum of the panel pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. § 46(d) (2012).

Appeal: 14-7431 Doc: 5 Filed: 01/27/2015 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Gary Richard Lackey seeks to appeal the district 

court’s orders denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) and Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 59(e) motions. The orders are not appealable 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 (2000); see Miller-El v. 

Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (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. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude 

that Lackey 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 

Appeal: 14-7431 Doc: 5 Filed: 01/27/2015 Pg: 2 of 3
3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 14-7431 Doc: 5 Filed: 01/27/2015 Pg: 3 of 3