United States v. Cory Harris , 698 F. App'x 104 ( 2017 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 17-6679
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
CORY D. HARRIS, a/k/a Corey D. Harris,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 17-6712
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
CORY D. HARRIS, a/k/a Corey D. Harris,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District Judge. (3:11-cr-00097-HEH-1; 3:14-cv-00032-
HEH)
Submitted: September 28, 2017 Decided: October 3, 2017
Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Cory D. Harris, Appellant Pro Se. Peter Sinclair Duffey, Gurney Wingate Grant, II,
Assistant United States Attorneys, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
In these consolidated appeals, Cory D. Harris seeks to appeal the district court’s
orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion and his motions filed under
Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e), 52(b). 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). 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 Harris has not made
the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the
appeals. 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