Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Al James SMITH, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-11-21
Citations: 585 F. App'x 238
Docket Number: No. 14-7068
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Al James SMITH, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 585
Pages: 238–239

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Al James SMITH, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 14-7068.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Nov. 18, 2014.
Decided: Nov. 21, 2014.
Al James Smith, Appellant Pro Se. Seth Morgan Wood, Office of the United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Al James Smith seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion as successive and subsequent order denying his Fed. R.Civ.P. 59(e) motion to alter or amend judgment. 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). A certificate of ap-pealability 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, 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 Smith has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the áppeal. 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.