Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-16-06087/USCOURTS-ca4-16-06087-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Ricky Lee Groves
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6087

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

RICKY LEE GROVES,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior

District Judge. (5:94-cr-00097-F-1; 5:15-cv-00224-F)

Submitted: August 25, 2016 Decided: August 29, 2016

Before NIEMEYER, DIAZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ricky Lee Groves, Appellant Pro Se. G. Norman Acker, III, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Seth Morgan Wood, OFFICE OF 

THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-6087 Doc: 10 Filed: 08/29/2016 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Ricky Lee Groves seeks to appeal the district court’s order

granting in part his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion for 

reconsideration of a previous order dismissing as successive his 

28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion, and ultimately denying relief on 

the merits of the § 2255 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). 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 

Groves 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: 16-6087 Doc: 10 Filed: 08/29/2016 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: 16-6087 Doc: 10 Filed: 08/29/2016 Pg: 3 of 3