UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-7683
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
EDWARD DANE JEFFUS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. N. Carlton Tilley,
Jr., Senior District Judge. (6:92-cr-00184-NCT-2)
Submitted: April 21, 2016 Decided: May 4, 2016
Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Edward Dane Jeffus, Appellant Pro Se. Angela Hewlett Miller,
Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Edward Dane Jeffus seeks to appeal the district court’s order
adopting the recommendation of the magistrate judge, denying
Jeffus’ Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion to alter or amend the court’s
January 15, 2015 order, and denying Jeffus’ Fed. R. Civ. P.
60(b)(4) motion seeking relief from the court’s February 11, 1997
judgment. 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
Jeffus has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny
Jeffus’ motion for a certificate of appealability, deny leave to
2
proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We also deny
Jeffus’ motion for appointment of counsel along with all his
numerous pending motions. 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