Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Avery WHEELER, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-10-25
Citations: 399 F. App'x 780
Docket Number: No. 10-7058
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Avery WHEELER, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before KING and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 399
Pages: 780–780

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Avery WHEELER, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 10-7058.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Oct. 8, 2010.
Decided: Oct. 25, 2010.
Avery Wheeler, Appellant Pro Se. Laura Marie Everhart, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before KING and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Avery Wheeler seeks to appeal the district court's orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2010) motion and denying his motion for reconsideration under 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) (2006); 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) (2006). 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, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (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, 120 S.Ct. 1595. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Wheeler has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in for-ma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED.