UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-6805
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
TERRY RANDALL BELK,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Anderson. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (8:11-cr-00337-HMH-1; 8:13-cv-00318-HMH)
Submitted: September 26, 2013 Decided: September 30, 2013
Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Terry Randall Belk, Appellant Pro Se. Maxwell B. Cauthen, III,
Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Terry Randall Belk seeks to appeal the district
court’s orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West
Supp. 2013) motion and his motion to alter or amend that
judgment. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). These orders are not
appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a
certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006);
Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 369 (4th Cir. 2004). 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).
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude
that Belk has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we
grant his motion to take judicial notice of Alleyne v. United
States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (2013), and Descamps v. United States,
133 S. Ct. 2276 (2013), * deny a certificate of appealability, and
*
We conclude that, even in light of these two recent
Supreme Court cases, Belk has failed to meet the standard for
the issuance of a certificate of appealability.
2
dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the
facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
materials before this court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
DISMISSED
3