UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-8158
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JAMES STEVEN LESANE,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 13-7114
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JAMES STEVEN LESANE,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior
District Judge. (3:08-cr-00185-REP-1; 3:10-cv-00109-REP)
Submitted: September 12, 2013 Decided: October 9, 2013
Before WILKINSON and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
No. 12-8158 dismissed in part; affirmed in part; No. 13-7114
dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James Steven Lesane, Appellant Pro Se. Elizabeth Wu, Assistant
United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
In Case No. 12-8158, James Steven Lesane seeks to
appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his
28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2013) motion, and, in Case No.
13-7114, Lesane seeks to appeal the district court’s order
denying his motion for a certificate of appealability and his
motion to alter or amend the district court’s judgment denying
his § 2255 motion. 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). 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
3
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 Lesane has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we
deny certificates of appealability and dismiss the appeals of
the orders denying Lesane’s § 2255 motion, Rule 59(e) motion,
and motion for a certificate of appealability.
In Case No. 12-8158, Lesane also seeks to appeal the
district court’s order denying his second Fed. R. Crim. P. 33
motion. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible
error. Accordingly, we affirm the order denying Lesane’s second
Rule 33 motion for the reasons stated by the district court.
United States v. Lesane, Nos. 3:08-cr-00185-REP-1; 3:10-cv-
00109-REP (E.D. Va. Dec. 13, 2012).
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.
No. 12-8158 DISMISSED IN PART;
AFFIRMED IN PART
No. 13-7114 DISMISSED
4