Court Opinion

ID: 2754168
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2014-11-21 20:01:00.469168+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:25:17.883412
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 14-7068

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                       Plaintiff – Appellee,

          v.

AL JAMES SMITH,

                       Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.     Louise W. Flanagan,
District Judge. (5:03-cr-00195-FL-1; 5:07-cv-00083-FL)

Submitted:   November 18, 2014            Decided:   November 21, 2014

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Al James Smith, Appellant Pro Se. Seth Morgan Wood, OFFICE OF
THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

              Al James Smith seeks to appeal the district court’s

order    dismissing         his     28     U.S.C.          § 2255     (2012)       motion    as

successive     and    subsequent         order       denying    his    Fed.    R.    Civ.    P.

59(e) motion to alter or amend judgment.                             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 Smith 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

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

                                                               DISMISSED

                                   3