UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-8082
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ROBERT EDWARD PATTERSON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle,
District Judge. (5:04-cr-00049-BO-1; 5:07-cv-00385-BO)
Submitted: July 14, 2010 Decided: July 22, 2010
Before WILKINSON, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Robert Edward Patterson, Appellant Pro Se. Matthew Fesak, Steve
R. Matheney, Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Robert Edward Patterson seeks to appeal the district
court’s orders denying him relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255
(West Supp. 2010) motion and treating his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e)
motion as a successive § 2255 motion, and denying it on that
basis. The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice
or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(1) (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 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 Patterson has not made the requisite showing.
Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny
2
Patterson’s motion for appointment of counsel, 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
3