United States v. Ricky Groves

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-6087
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
RICKY LEE GROVES,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior
District Judge. (5:94-cr-00097-F-1; 5:15-cv-00224-F)
Submitted: August 25, 2016 Decided: August 29, 2016
Before NIEMEYER, DIAZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Ricky Lee Groves, Appellant Pro Se. G. Norman Acker, III,
Assistant United States Attorney, Seth Morgan Wood, OFFICE OF
THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Ricky Lee Groves seeks to appeal the district court’s order
granting in part his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion for
reconsideration of a previous order dismissing as successive his
28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion, and ultimately denying relief on
the merits of the § 2255 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). 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
Groves 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