Case Name: Patrick L. BOOKER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. McKither BODISON, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-04-23
Citations: 519 F. App'x 165
Docket Number: No. 13-6259
Parties: Patrick L. BOOKER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. McKither BODISON, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 519
Pages: 165–166

Head Matter:
Patrick L. BOOKER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. McKither BODISON, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 13-6259.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: April 18, 2013.
Decided: April 23, 2013.
Patrick L. Booker, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Brendan McDonald, Office of the Attorney General of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Patrick L. Booker seeks to appeal the district court's order 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. § 2254 (2006) petition and its subsequent order denying his Fed. R.Civ.P. 59(e) motion to alter or amend. The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2258(c)(1)(A) (2006); Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 369 (4th Cir.2004). A certificate of appeal-ability 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 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 petition 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 Booker 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.