UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-6502
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
RAYMOND GARFIELD BUTLER,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Senior District
Judge. (1:08-cr-00442-JFM-4; 1:13-cv-03804-JFM)
Submitted: September 12, 2014 Decided: September 22, 2014
Before WILKINSON, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Raymond Garfield Butler, Appellant Pro Se. Christopher John
Romano, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Raymond Garfield Butler seeks to appeal the district
court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012)
motion and his motion to alter or amend judgment under Fed. R.
Civ. P. 59(e). The orders are 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 Butler has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we
deny Butler’s motion for a certificate of appealability and
dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the
facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
2
materials before this court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
DISMISSED
3