United States v. Eugene Cousins , 440 F. App'x 192 ( 2011 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-6485
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
EUGENE ROSS COUSINS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Harrisonburg. Glen E. Conrad, Chief
District Judge. (5:06-cr-00008-gec-mfu-1; 5:09-cv-80169-gec-
mfu)
Submitted: July 21, 2011 Decided: July 26, 2011
Before NIEMEYER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON,
Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Eugene Ross Cousins, Appellant Pro Se. Jeb Thomas Terrien,
Assistant United States Attorney, Harrisonburg, Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Eugene Ross Cousins seeks to appeal the district
court’s order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for
relief from the district court’s order denying his 28 U.S.C.A.
§ 2255 (West Supp. 2011) 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) (2006). 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 (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
Cousins 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
2
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3