United States v. Jeffrey Tarrats

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-6224
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
JEFFREY TARRATS, a/k/a Skip, a/k/a Ozzy,
Defendant – Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District
Judge. (2:04-cr-00016-RAJ-JEB-7; 2:06-cv-00592-RAJ)
Submitted: June 3, 2011 Decided: June 16, 2011
Before WILKINSON and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jeffrey Tarrats, Appellant Pro Se. Darryl James Mitchell,
Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jeffrey Tarrats seeks to appeal the district court’s
orders denying his motions under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) and Fed.
R. Civ. P. 60(b) for reconsideration of the district court’s
order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2010)
motion. The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice
or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006). 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) (2006). 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 Tarrats has not made the requisite showing.
See United States v. Linder, 552 F.3d 391, 396-97 (4th Cir.
2009). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability,
deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, deny the motion for
2
appointment of counsel, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense
with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3