Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jerry DAVIS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-08-01
Citations: 580 F. App'x 233
Docket Number: No. 14-6780
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jerry DAVIS, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 580
Pages: 233–234

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jerry DAVIS, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 14-6780.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: July 29, 2014.
Decided: Aug. 1, 2014.
Jerry Davis, Appellant pro se. Leesa Washington, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Ap-pellee.
Before NIEMEYER, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Jerry Davis seeks to appeal the district court's orders denying his Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) motion for reconsideration of the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion, denying his motion to take judicial notice and denying his motion to alter and amend. 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. § 2258(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 Davis 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.