United States v. Arlington Ashley , 627 F. App'x 202 ( 2015 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-7411
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
ARLINGTON ASHLEY, a/k/a Arlington Efrain Ashley,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Newport News. Raymond A. Jackson,
District Judge. (4:10-cr-00088-RAJ-TEM-1; 4:13-cv-00135-RAJ)
Submitted: December 17, 2015 Decided: December 22, 2015
Before DIAZ and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Arlington Ashley, Appellant Pro Se. Eric Matthew Hurt, Assistant
United States Attorney, Newport News, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Arlington Ashley seeks to appeal the district court’s order
denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for reconsideration of
the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255 (2012) motion. Because Ashley’s claim presents a true
60(b) 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) (2012). See United States v. McRae, 793
F.3d 392, 397, 400 n.7 (4th Cir. 2015); 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). 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
Ashley has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny
2
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
3