UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-8016
JERMAINE LORENZO PICKETT,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
GENE JOHNSON, Director Virginia Dept. of Correction,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Glen E. Conrad, Chief
District Judge. (7:08-cv-00505-GEC-mfu)
Submitted: April 13, 2016 Decided: April 15, 2016
Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jermaine Lorenzo Pickett, Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer Conrad
Williamson, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA,
Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jermaine Lorenzo Pickett seeks to appeal the district
court’s order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for
reconsideration of the district court’s order denying relief on
his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The order is not
appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a
certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012);
Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 369 (4th Cir. 2004).
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 the district
court’s assessment of the constitutional claims 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 petition 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
Pickett 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
3