Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-07411/USCOURTS-ca4-15-07411-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Arlington Ashley
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7411

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

ARLINGTON ASHLEY, a/k/a Arlington Efrain Ashley,

 Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Newport News. Raymond A. Jackson, 

District Judge. (4:10-cr-00088-RAJ-TEM-1; 4:13-cv-00135-RAJ)

Submitted: December 17, 2015 Decided: December 22, 2015

Before DIAZ and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Arlington Ashley, Appellant Pro Se. Eric Matthew Hurt, Assistant 

United States Attorney, Newport News, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-7411 Doc: 9 Filed: 12/22/2015 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Arlington Ashley seeks to appeal the district court’s order 

denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for reconsideration of 

the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2255 (2012) motion. Because Ashley’s claim presents a true 

60(b) motion, the order is not appealable unless a circuit 

justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 

U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). See United States v. McRae, 793 

F.3d 392, 397, 400 n.7 (4th Cir. 2015); 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) (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 

Ashley has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny 

Appeal: 15-7411 Doc: 9 Filed: 12/22/2015 Pg: 2 of 3
3

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

Appeal: 15-7411 Doc: 9 Filed: 12/22/2015 Pg: 3 of 3