United States v. Alton May , 593 F. App'x 239 ( 2015 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-7677
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ALTON CHARLES MAY, a/k/a Chuckie, a/k/a John Dieudonne,
a/k/a Nieem,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Roger W. Titus, Senior District Judge.
(8:12-cr-00278-RWT-1; 8:14-cv-02999-RWT)
Submitted: February 12, 2015 Decided: February 19, 2015
Before MOTZ, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Alton Charles May, Appellant Pro Se. Leah Bressack, Assistant
United States Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Alton Charles May seeks to appeal the district court’s
orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) and Fed. R.
Civ. P. 59(e) motions. 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 or underlying habeas application
states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional
right. Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 371 (4th Cir. 2004).
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude
that May 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