United States v. Richardson , 100 F. App'x 911 ( 2004 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-7450
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
NATHANIEL A. RICHARDSON, JR., a/k/a Nathaniel
Skeeter, a/k/a Skeet,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 04-6394
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
NATHANIEL A. RICHARDSON, JR., a/k/a Nathaniel
Skeeter, a/k/a Skeet,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District
Judge. (CR-96-153; CA-02-942-2)
Submitted: May 26, 2004 Decided: June 17, 2004
Before WIDENER, MOTZ, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Nathaniel A. Richardson, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Laura P. Tayman,
Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
In these consolidated cases, Nathaniel A. Richardson,
Jr., a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court’s
orders denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255(2000), and denying his motion to alter or amend the judgment
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). The orders are not appealable
unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of
appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). 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) (2000).
A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable
jurists would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and
that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are
also debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322,
336 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v.
Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently
reviewed the record and conclude that Richardson has not made the
requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny certificates 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
- 3 -