Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kamal Majeid WEBB, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-04-11
Citations: 471 F. App'x 131
Docket Number: No. 11-7357
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kamal Majeid WEBB, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 471
Pages: 131–132

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kamal Majeid WEBB, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 11-7357.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: April 2, 2012.
Decided: April 11, 2012.
Kamal Majeid Webb, Appellant Pro Se. Jane J. Jackson, Steve R. Matheny, Rudolf A. Renfer, Jr., Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before MOTZ and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Kamal Majeid Webb seeks to appeal the district court's orders denying his motions under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e). These orders, which derive from the denial of his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2011) motion, are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 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 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 Webb has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, although we grant Webb's motion to amend his motion for a certificate of appealability, we deny the motion for a certificate of appealability, as amended, 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.