United States v. Roddie Dumas, Sr. , 536 F. App'x 309 ( 2013 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-6344
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
RODDIE PHILLIP DUMAS, SR.,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney,
Chief District Judge. (3:04-cr-00083-FDW-DCK-1; 3:12-cv-00365-
FDW)
Submitted: July 25, 2013 Decided: July 29, 2013
Before GREGORY, DAVIS, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Roddie Phillip Dumas, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. Amy Elizabeth Ray,
Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Roddie Phillip Dumas, Sr., seeks to appeal the
district court’s order denying relief on his Fed. R. Civ. P.
60(b) motion for reconsideration in his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West
Supp. 2013) proceeding. 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 Dumas 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
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3