Court Opinion

ID: 4260283
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2018-04-02 19:00:23.193633+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:41:11.552114
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                      No. 17-6514

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                    Plaintiff - Appellee,

             v.

GARY MICHAEL ALLEN, a/k/a Philly,

                    Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
Beaufort. Patrick Michael Duffy, Senior District Judge. (9:96-cr-00986-PMD-9; 9:16-
cv-02086-PMD)

Submitted: March 29, 2018                                         Decided: April 2, 2018

Before AGEE and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Cody James Groeber, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Charleston,
South Carolina, for Appellant. Emily Evans Limehouse, OFFICE OF THE UNITED
STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       Gary Michael Allen seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying relief on

Allen’s 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion and 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 Allen has not made

the requisite showing.     Accordingly, we deny Allen’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