Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-16-06307/USCOURTS-ca4-16-06307-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 

---

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6307

JERMAINE LORENZO PICKETT,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

DIRECTOR, VADOC,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Glen E. Conrad, Chief 

District Judge. (7:16-cv-00024-GEC-RSB)

Submitted: May 18, 2016 Decided: May 23, 2016

Before SHEDD, DIAZ, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jermaine Lorenzo Pickett, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-6307 Doc: 8 Filed: 05/23/2016 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Jermaine Lorenzo Pickett seeks to appeal the district 

court’s orders dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition

as successive and denying his motion for reconsideration.* These

orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge 

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

§ 2253(c)(1)(A) (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 petition states a 

debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 

529 U.S. at 484-85. 

 * Because Pickett’s motion was filed within 28 days after 

entry of the district court’s dismissal order, it is properly 

construed as a Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion, rather than a Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e).

Appeal: 16-6307 Doc: 8 Filed: 05/23/2016 Pg: 2 of 3
3

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that 

Pickett has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we 

deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in 

forma pauperis, 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

Appeal: 16-6307 Doc: 8 Filed: 05/23/2016 Pg: 3 of 3