Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Charles Ray DEESE, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-11-28
Citations: 704 F. App'x 274
Docket Number: No. 17-6961
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Charles Ray DEESE, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before WYNN and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 704
Pages: 274–275

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Charles Ray DEESE, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 17-6961
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: November 21, 2017
Decided: November 28, 2017
Charles Ray Deese, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas B. Murphy, Seth Morgan Wood, Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before WYNN and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Charles Ray Deese seeks to appeal the district court's orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motions. The orders are not ap-pealable 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 Deese 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