UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-6254
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
DANNY LEE FLECK,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 11-6735
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
DANNY LEE FLECK,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the District
of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Senior District
Judge. (1:04-cr-00491-JFM-1; 1:10-cv-03013-JFM)
Submitted: August 11, 2011 Decided: August 18, 2011
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Danny Lee Fleck, Appellant Pro Se. Harry Mason Gruber,
Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
Danny Lee Fleck seeks to appeal the district court’s
orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.
2011) motion and denying his motion for reconsideration. The
orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge
issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(1)(B) (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 Fleck 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
and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
3
before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
DISMISSED
4