Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Hendrick A. COUSAR, a/k/a Tony, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-08-30
Citations: 655 F. App'x 982
Docket Number: No. 16-6299
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Hendrick A. COUSAR, a/k/a Tony, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER, DIAZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 655
Pages: 982–983

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Hendrick A. COUSAR, a/k/a Tony, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 16-6299
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: August 25, 2016
Decided: August 30, 2016
Hendrick A. Cousar, Appellant Pro Se. Tommie DeWayne Pearson, Julius Ness Richardson, Assistant United States Attorneys, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appel-lee.
Before NIEMEYER, DIAZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Hendrick A. Cousar seeks to appeal the district court's orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion and denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion. The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of ap-pealability. 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 Cousar has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Cousar'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