Case Name: Aaron Lamont BARNES, Petitioner-Appellant, v. James S. GILMORE, Respondent-Appellee; Aaron Lamont Barnes, Petitioner-Appellant, v. James S. Gilmore, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-05-30
Citations: 473 F. App'x 327
Docket Number: Nos. 11-7548, 12-6398
Parties: Aaron Lamont BARNES, Petitioner—Appellant, v. James S. GILMORE, Respondent—Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 473
Pages: 327–328

Head Matter:
Aaron Lamont BARNES, Petitioner—Appellant, v. James S. GILMORE, Respondent—Appellee.
Aaron Lamont Barnes, Petitioner—Appellant, v. James S. Gilmore, Respondent—Appellee.
Nos. 11-7548, 12-6398.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: May 24, 2012.
Decided: May 30, 2012.
Aaron Lamont Barnes, Appellant Pro Se.
Before MOTZ and DAVIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Aaron Lamont Barnes 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. § 2254 (2006) petition (No. 11-7548), and the district court's order denying his Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) motion for reconsideration of that order (No. 12-6398). The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certifícate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (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 petition 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 Barnes has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Barnes' motion to hold Appeal No. 11-7548 in abeyance, deny a certificate of appealability, and dismiss the appeals. 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.