Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-13-07116/USCOURTS-ca4-13-07116-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Alex Antonio Graham
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-7116

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

ALEX ANTONIO GRAHAM,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. Terrence W. Boyle, 

District Judge. (7:07-cr-00044-BO-1; 7:12-cv-00217-BO)

Submitted: January 15, 2015 Decided: January 20, 2015

Before WILKINSON and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, G. Alan DuBois, 

Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for 

Appellant. Thomas G. Walker, United States Attorney, Jennifer 

P. May-Parker, Kristine L. Fritz, Assistant United States 

Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 13-7116 Doc: 24 Filed: 01/20/2015 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Alex Antonio Graham seeks to appeal the district 

court’s orders denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion in 

part and denying his motions to alter or amend that judgment. 

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). 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); see Reid v. 

Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 368-69 (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 Graham 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: 13-7116 Doc: 24 Filed: 01/20/2015 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: 13-7116 Doc: 24 Filed: 01/20/2015 Pg: 3 of 3