UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-7685
DERRICK HARRELL,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
ANTHONY HATHAWAY,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard,
Senior District Judge. (5:07-hc-02052-H)
Submitted: March 6, 2009 Decided: April 8, 2009
Before MICHAEL, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Derrick Harrell, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III,
Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Derrick Harrell seeks to appeal the district court’s
order denying his post-judgment motion, construed by the court
as a motion pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e), seeking
reconsideration of the court’s order dismissing as untimely
Harrell’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. The order is not
appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a
certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)
(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). A prisoner satisfies this
standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find
that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district
court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural
ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. See
Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v.
McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676,
683-84 (4th Cir. 2001).
On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised
in the informal brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Harrell’s brief
alleges no error committed by the district court in denying his
motion, and we discern none. Accordingly, we deny a certificate
of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
2
presented in the materials before the court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3