U.S. v. Speagle

Full title: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. John Andrew SPEAGLE, Sr.…

Court: United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit

Date published: Feb 3, 2011

410 F. App'x 699 (4th Cir. 2011)

Opinion

Nos. 10-43696, 10-7326.

Submitted: November 9, 2010.

Decided: February 3, 2011.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L. Voorhees, District Judge. (5:05-cr-00234-RLV-CH-2; 5:09-cv-00066-RLV).

John Andrew Speagle, Sr., Appellant Pro Se.

Before MOTZ, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

John Andrew Speagle, Sr., seeks to appeal the district court's orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2010) motion and his Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) motion for reconsideration of his § 2255 dismissal. The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006); see Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 369 (4th Cir. 2004). 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) (2006). 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, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (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, 120 S.Ct. 1595. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Speagle has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeals. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED.