Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-09-08082/USCOURTS-ca4-09-08082-0/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UNPUBLISHED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. 09-8082

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

ROBERT EDWARD PATTERSON,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, 

District Judge. (5:04-cr-00049-BO-1; 5:07-cv-00385-BO)

Submitted: July 14, 2010 Decided: July 22, 2010

Before WILKINSON, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robert Edward Patterson, Appellant Pro Se. Matthew Fesak, Steve 

R. Matheney, Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North 

Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 09-8082 Doc: 12 Filed: 07/22/2010 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Robert Edward Patterson seeks to appeal the district 

court’s orders denying him relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 

(West Supp. 2010) motion and treating his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) 

motion as a successive § 2255 motion, and denying it on that 

basis. The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice 

or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(1) (2006); Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 369 (4th 

Cir. 2004). 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) (2006). 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 Patterson has not made the requisite showing. 

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny 

Appeal: 09-8082 Doc: 12 Filed: 07/22/2010 Pg: 2 of 3
3

Patterson’s motion for appointment of counsel, and dismiss the 

appeal.

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and 

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 09-8082 Doc: 12 Filed: 07/22/2010 Pg: 3 of 3