Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Terrance Deandrew BACKUS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-01-20
Citations: 589 F. App'x 201
Docket Number: No. 14-7305
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Terrance Deandrew BACKUS, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before WILKINSON and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 589
Pages: 201–202

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Terrance Deandrew BACKUS, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 14-7305.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Jan. 15, 2015.
Decided: Jan. 20, 2015.
Terrance Deandrew Backus, Appellant Pro Se. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Terrance Deandrew Backus seeks to appeal the district court's orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion and his Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) motion. 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 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, 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 Backus 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 contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED.