United States v. Kevin Richardson , 589 F. App'x 123 ( 2014 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-6922
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
KEVIN RICHARDSON, a/k/a Kevin Bookman, a/k/a KB,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia. Cameron McGowan Currie, Senior
District Judge. (3:11-cr-02134-CMC-1; 3:13-cv-01525-CMC)
Submitted: November 26, 2014 Decided: December 24, 2014
Before KEENAN and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Kevin Richardson, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Frank Daley, Jr.,
Jimmie Ewing, Julius Ness Richardson, John David Rowell,
Assistant United States Attorneys, Columbia, South Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Kevin Richardson seeks to appeal the district court’s
orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion and
his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion to alter or amend that
judgment. The orders are not appealable unless a circuit
justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28
U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012); 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) (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).
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude
that Richardson has not made the requisite showing.
Accordingly, we deny the pending motion for 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
2