UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-6785
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
RAOUL LAFOND, a/k/a Chris Lafond, a/k/a Jim, a/k/a Jamaican
Jim, a/k/a Derrick Burch, a/k/a Fletcher Busbee, a/k/a
Ronald Elie, a/k/a Ronald Ely,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. William L. Osteen,
Jr., Chief District Judge. (6:96-cr-00212-WO-1; 1:12-cv-01200-
WO-JEP)
Submitted: August 21, 2014 Decided: August 26, 2014
Before SHEDD, AGEE, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Raoul Lafond, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Michael Hamilton, Angela
Hewlett Miller, Assistant United States Attorneys, Greensboro,
North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Raoul Lafond seeks to appeal from the district court’s
order adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendations and
(1) denying Lafond’s motions for default judgment and motion to
dismiss, and (2) construing his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion as
a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion and dismissing it as
successive. The order is not appealable unless a circuit
justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28
U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). 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) (2012). 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 Lafond has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we
deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.
2
Additionally, we deny Lafond’s motions for entry of default and
for release on bail pending appeal. We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
presented in the materials before this court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3