Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-07527/USCOURTS-ca4-15-07527-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Rodney Lamar Self
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7527

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

RODNEY LAMAR SELF,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of North Carolina, at Bryson City. Martin K. 

Reidinger, District Judge. (2:08-cr-00028-MR-1; 2:13-cv-00049-

MR)

Submitted: March 11, 2016 Decided: March 17, 2016

Before SHEDD, AGEE, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Matthew Gridley Pruden, TIN, FULTON, WALKER & OWEN, PLLC, 

Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Amy Elizabeth Ray, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-7527 Doc: 16 Filed: 03/17/2016 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Rodney Lamar Self 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. 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); United States 

v. McRae, 793 F.3d 392, 398-401 (4th Cir. 2015). 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 

Self 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: 15-7527 Doc: 16 Filed: 03/17/2016 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: 15-7527 Doc: 16 Filed: 03/17/2016 Pg: 3 of 3