Opinion
20-7026
02-15-2022
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. COREY MCKINZIE HOWARD, Defendant-Appellant.
Corey McKinzie Howard, Appellant Pro Se.
UNPUBLISHED
Submitted: February 9, 2022
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Glen E. Conrad, Senior District Judge. (7:08-cr-00023-GEC-1; 7:18-cv-81344-GEC)
Corey McKinzie Howard, Appellant Pro Se.
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and WYNN and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM
Corey McKinzie Howard seeks to appeal the district court's order denying his Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) motion for relief from the order dismissing his initial 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion as untimely. He also seeks to appeal the court's order denying his Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) motion for reconsideration. These orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B); see United States v. McRae, 793 F.3d 392, 397-99 (4th Cir. 2015). 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). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists could find the district court's assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v. Davis, 137 S.Ct. 759, 773-74 (2017). 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. Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 140-41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)).
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Howard 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