United States v. Gary Lackey

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-7431

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

GARY RICHARD LACKEY,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L.
Voorhees, District Judge. (5:11-cr-00052-RLV-1; 5:14-cv-00054-
RLV)

Submitted: January 22, 2015 Decided: January 27, 2015

Before SHEDD and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. *

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Gary Richard Lackey, Appellant Pro Se. Steven R. Kaufman,
Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

*
The opinion is filed by a quorum of the panel pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 46(d) (2012).
PER CURIAM:

Gary Richard Lackey seeks to appeal the district

court’s orders denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) and Fed. R.

Civ. P. 59(e) motions. 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 Lackey has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we

deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

2
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED