United States v. Gary Allen ( 2018 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 17-6514
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
GARY MICHAEL ALLEN, a/k/a Philly,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
Beaufort. Patrick Michael Duffy, Senior District Judge. (9:96-cr-00986-PMD-9; 9:16-
cv-02086-PMD)
Submitted: March 29, 2018 Decided: April 2, 2018
Before AGEE and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Cody James Groeber, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Charleston,
South Carolina, for Appellant. Emily Evans Limehouse, OFFICE OF THE UNITED
STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Gary Michael Allen seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying relief on
Allen’s 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion and denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion to
alter or amend 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). 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 Allen has not made
the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Allen’s 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