United States v. Smith

Full title: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. WILLIE LOUIS ROSEDERIE…

Court: UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

Date published: Jul 18, 2019

No. 19-6314 (4th Cir. Jul. 18, 2019)

Opinion

No. 19-6314

07-18-2019

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. WILLIE LOUIS ROSEDERIE SMITH, a/k/a WL, Defendant - Appellant.

Willie Louis Rosederie Smith, Appellant Pro Se.

PER CURIAM

UNPUBLISHED

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Senior District Judge. (3:13-cr-01017-JFA-5; 3:17-cv-00886-JFA) Before MOTZ, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Willie Louis Rosederie Smith, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:

Willie Louis Rosederie Smith seeks to appeal the district court's orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion and its subsequent order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion to reconsider. 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 contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED