Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michael Paul PUZEY, a/k/a Big Pete, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-08-31
Citations: 393 F. App'x 123
Docket Number: No. 09-7936
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michael Paul PUZEY, a/k/a Big Pete, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 393
Pages: 123–124

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michael Paul PUZEY, a/k/a Big Pete, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 09-7936.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Aug. 26, 2010.
Decided: Aug. 31, 2010.
Michael Paul Puzey, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Oliver Mucklow, Assistant United States Attorney, Martinsburg, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Before KING and DUNCAN, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Michael Paul Puzey seeks to appeal the district court's order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying his Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) motion for reconsideration of a prior order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2010) motion. The order is not ap-pealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006); Reid v. Ange-lone, 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 Puzey has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Puze/s motion for appointment of counsel, 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 the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED.