Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-14-07677/USCOURTS-ca4-14-07677-0/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UNPUBLISHED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. 14-7677

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

ALTON CHARLES MAY, a/k/a Chuckie, a/k/a John Dieudonne, 

a/k/a Nieem,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Roger W. Titus, Senior District Judge. 

(8:12-cr-00278-RWT-1; 8:14-cv-02999-RWT)

Submitted: February 12, 2015 Decided: February 19, 2015

Before MOTZ, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Alton Charles May, Appellant Pro Se. Leah Bressack, Assistant 

United States Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-7677 Doc: 8 Filed: 02/19/2015 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Alton Charles May seeks to appeal the district court’s 

orders denying relief on 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 or underlying habeas application 

states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional 

right. Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 371 (4th Cir. 2004). 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude 

that May 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: 14-7677 Doc: 8 Filed: 02/19/2015 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: 14-7677 Doc: 8 Filed: 02/19/2015 Pg: 3 of 3