Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kevin RICHARDSON, a/k/a Kevin Bookman, a/k/a KB, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-12-24
Citations: 589 F. App'x 123
Docket Number: No. 14-6922
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kevin RICHARDSON, a/k/a Kevin Bookman, a/k/a KB, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before KEENAN and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 589
Pages: 123–124

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kevin RICHARDSON, a/k/a Kevin Bookman, a/k/a KB, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 14-6922.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Nov. 26, 2014.
Decided: Dec. 24, 2014.
Kevin Richardson, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Frank Daley, Jr., Jimmie Ewing,Julius Ness Richardson, John David Ro-well, Assistant United States Attorneys, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before KEENAN and FLOYD, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Kevin Richardson seeks to appeal the district court's orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion and his Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) motion to alter or amend that judgment. The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certifícate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012); Reid v. An-gelone, 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) (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).
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Richardson has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny the pending 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.