UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-6210
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
CALVIN BERNARD GREEN, a/k/a Aaron O. Smith, Jr., a/k/a
Calvin M. Green, a/k/a Calvin D. Smith, a/k/a Calvin Marvin
Smith, a/k/a Calvin Darnell Green, a/k/a Budda Smith, a/k/a
Calvin Darnell Smith, a/k/a William Mingo Johnson,
Defendant – Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, Senior
District Judge. (7:99-cr-00032-jct-1; 7:09-cv-80166-jct-mfu)
Submitted: April 22, 2010 Decided: May 10, 2010
Before KING and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Calvin Bernard Green, Appellant Pro Se. Joseph W. H. Mott,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Roanoke, Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Calvin Bernard Green seeks to appeal the district
court’s order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion to alter
or amend the court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255
(West Supp. 2009) motion. The orders are not appealable unless
a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of
appealability. 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).
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. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S.
322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484-85
(2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We
have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Green
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
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
2