UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-7666
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
RONNIE D. RAINEY,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever III,
Chief District Judge. (5:10-cr-00199-D-1)
Submitted: September 11, 2015 Decided: September 16, 2015
Before GREGORY, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed in part; affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.
Ronnie D. Rainey, Appellant Pro Se. Jason Harris Cowley, Evan
Rikhye, Assistant United States Attorneys, Shailika S. Kotiya,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Ronnie D. Rainey seeks to appeal the district court’s
October 29, 2014 order denying his motion to reconsider the
court’s July 9, 2014 order that denied his filing as a
successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion for which Rainey
failed to first obtain authorization from this court. The July
9 order also noted that, to the extent that Rainey sought relief
under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e), he failed to show entitlement to
relief under the Rule. The court’s October 29 order
specifically denied relief for the reasons explained in its July
9 order.
Generally an order in a § 2255 proceeding 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
2
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
Rainey has not made the requisite showing regarding the district
court’s denial of his motion for relief under Rule 59(e).
Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss
this part of the appeal.
As to that portion of the district court’s order denying
Rainey’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 60 motion as a successive § 2255
motion, however, we recently held that no certificate of
appealability is required in order for this court to address the
district court’s jurisdictional categorization of a Rule 60(b)
motion “as an unauthorized successive habeas petition.” United
States v. McRae, 793 F.3d 392, 400 (4th Cir. 2015). We find no
error in the district court’s conclusion that Rainey sought
successive § 2255 relief, without authorization from this court,
and the district court therefore lacked jurisdiction to consider
this motion. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(3)(A) (2012). Thus, to the
extent Rainey seeks review of the district court’s
successiveness finding, we affirm.
DISMISSED IN PART;
AFFIRMED IN PART
3