UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-6806
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DARYL DEON EVERETT,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard,
Senior District Judge. (5:05-cr-00189-H-1; 5:12-cv-00236-H)
Submitted: August 12, 2013 Decided: August 22, 2013
Before NIEMEYER, DIAZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Daryl Deon Everett, Appellant Pro Se. Joe Exum, Jr.,
Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant United States Attorneys,
Raleigh, North Carolina; Anne Margaret Hayes, Cary, North
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Daryl Deon Everett seeks to appeal the district
court’s orders dismissing his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.
2013) motion as time-barred and denying his subsequent motion to
alter or amend judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). 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). 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 Everett 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