Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. David WRIGHT, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-10-21
Citations: 543 F. App'x 312
Docket Number: No. 13-7256
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. David WRIGHT, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before AGEE, DAVIS, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 543
Pages: 312–312

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. David WRIGHT, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 13-7256.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Oct. 17, 2013.
Decided: Oct. 21, 2013.
David Wright, Appellant Pro Se. Leesa Washington, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Ap-pellee.
Before AGEE, DAVIS, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
David Wright seeks to appeal the district court's orders denying as untimely his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2013) motion and his motion to reconsider 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)(B) (2006). 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 Wright has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Wright's motion for a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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.