Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Courtney Jackson BUTTS, III, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-02-07
Citations: 464 F. App'x 105
Docket Number: No. 11-7185
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Courtney Jackson BUTTS, III, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 464
Pages: 105–106

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Courtney Jackson BUTTS, III, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 11-7185.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Jan. 26, 2012.
Decided: Feb. 7, 2012.
Courtney Jackson Butts, III, Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Courtney Jackson Butts, III, seeks to appeal the district court's orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2011) motion and denying his Fed. R.Civ.P. 59(e) motion to alter or amend the judgment. These orders are not appeal-able unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006). 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 assess ment 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 Butts 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 the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED.