Court Opinion

ID: 807011
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2012-08-20 19:24:18+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:10:11.311050
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                               No. 12-6547

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                      Plaintiff – Appellee,

          v.

GONZALES MARCH, a/k/a Gun, a/k/a Gon,

                      Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia.   Cameron McGowan Currie, District
Judge. (3:08-cr-00590-CMC-6; 3:10-cv-70294-CMC)

Submitted:   August 16, 2012                 Decided:   August 20, 2012

Before KING and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Joshua Snow Kendrick, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant.
Jimmie Ewing, Assistant United States Attorney, James Chris
Leventis, Jr., OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia,
South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Gonzales March seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying relief on his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion seeking

reconsideration of the denial of 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.

2012) relief.           The order is not appealable 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 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 March 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

                                            2
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

                                                           DISMISSED

                                3