Court Opinion

ID: 4365716
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2019-02-07 20:00:28.04904+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:18:07.801392
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                      No. 18-7075

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                    Plaintiff - Appellee,

             v.

DEON ANDRE RICHARDSON,

                    Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Newport News. Robert G. Doumar, Senior District Judge. (4:15-cr-00088-RGD-LRL-1;
4:17-cv-00085-RGD)

Submitted: January 28, 2019                                       Decided: February 7, 2019

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and KING and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Deon Andre Richardson, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       Deon Andre Richardson seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying relief

on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion and denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion for

reconsideration. The orders are 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 Richardson 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

                                             2