UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-7377
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
FLOYD RAYMOND LOOKER, a/k/a Ray,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg. Frederick P. Stamp,
Jr., Senior District Judge. (1:96-cr-00043-FPS-1; 1:99-cv-
00181-FPS)
Submitted: March 14, 2011 Decided: April 8, 2011
Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Floyd Raymond Looker, Appellant Pro Se. David Earl Godwin,
Shawn Angus Morgan, Assistant United States Attorneys,
Clarksburg, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Floyd Raymond Looker, Jr. seeks to appeal the district
court’s order denying his motion to amend his previously denied
28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2010) motion. The order is 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) (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 Looker has not made the requisite showing. A
district court may only grant a post-judgment motion to amend if
the court has vacated the underlying judgment pursuant to Fed.
R. Civ. P. 59(e) or 60(b). Laber v. Harvey, 438 F.3d 404, 427-
48 (4th Cir. 2006) (en banc). Here, the district court did not
2
vacate the underlying judgment, a judgment that this court
declined to overrule on appeal. 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
3