UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-6696
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
JOHN ANDREW SPEAGLE, SR.,
Defendant – Appellant.
No. 10-7326
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
JOHN ANDREW SPEAGLE, SR.,
Defendant – Appellant.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L.
Voorhees, District Judge. (5:05-cr-00234-RLV-CH-2; 5:09-cv-
00066-RLV)
Submitted: November 9, 2010 Decided: February 3, 2011
Before MOTZ, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
John Andrew Speagle, Sr., Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
John Andrew Speagle, Sr., seeks to appeal the district
court’s orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West
Supp. 2010) motion and his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion for
reconsideration of his § 2255 dismissal. The orders are not
appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a
certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006);
see 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 Speagle has not made the requisite showing.
Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss
the appeals. We dispense with oral argument because the facts
3
and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
DISMISSED
4