United States v. Zater

Full title: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. BRIAN PETER ZATER…

Court: UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

Date published: Jan 23, 2019

No. 18-7265 (4th Cir. Jan. 23, 2019)

Opinion

No. 18-7265

01-23-2019

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. BRIAN PETER ZATER, a/k/a Angel L, Defendant - Appellant.

Brian Peter Zater, Appellant Pro Se.

PER CURIAM

UNPUBLISHED

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Cameron McGowan Currie, Senior District Judge. (3:00-cr-00626-CMC-2; 3:02-cv-00958-HMH) Before WILKINSON and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Brian Peter Zater, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:

Brian Peter Zater seeks to appeal the district court's order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for reconsideration of the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order is 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 Zater 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