Court Opinion

ID: 2676897
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2014-06-03 19:00:41.795322+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:31:55.187661
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                        FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                             No. 14-6244

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                        Plaintiff – Appellee,

          v.

ERNEST LEE SMITH,

                        Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. Louise W. Flanagan,
District Judge. (7:07-cr-00123-FL-1; 7:12-cv-00211-FL)

Submitted:   May 29, 2014                       Decided:   June 3, 2014

Before SHEDD, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ernest Lee Smith, Appellant Pro Se. Leslie Katherine Cooley,
Michael Gordon James, Shailika K. Shah, OFFICE OF THE UNITED
STATES ATTORNEY, Edward D. Gray, Assistant United States
Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Ernest Lee Smith seeks to appeal the district court’s

orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion and

denying     Smith’s        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 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