Court Opinion

ID: 4466536
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2019-12-20 20:00:19.387219+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:02:44.712234
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                        No. 19-7107

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                     Plaintiff - Appellee,

              v.

KENNETH LEE FOSTER,

                     Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at
Asheville. Martin K. Reidinger, District Judge. (1:09-cr-00013-MR-WCM-8; 1:12-cv-
00315-MR)

Submitted: December 17, 2019                                Decided: December 20, 2019

Before KING, FLOYD, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kenneth Lee Foster, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

       Kenneth Lee Foster seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his Fed. R.

Civ. P. 60(d) motion seeking to set aside the judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012)

motion. The order is not appealable 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 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (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.

       We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Foster has not made

the requisite showing.     Accordingly, we deny Foster’s motion for 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

                                              2