UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-6077
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DELTON LAMONT RAYNOR,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District
Judge. (2:11-cr-00159-RAJ-DEM-1; 2:15-cv-00557-RAJ)
Submitted: May 18, 2016 Decided: May 23, 2016
Before SHEDD, DIAZ, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.
Delton Lamont Raynor, Appellant Pro Se. Andrew Lamont
Creighton, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Newport News,
Virginia, Stephen Westley Haynie, Assistant United States
Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Delton Lamont Raynor seeks to appeal the district court’s
order denying relief on his motions filed under Fed. R. Civ. P.
60(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012). Regarding the denial of Rule
60(b) relief, we find no abuse of discretion by the district
court, see Aikens v. Ingram, 652 F.3d 496, 501 (4th Cir. 2011)
(noting that Rule 60(b) motions are reviewed for an abuse of
discretion), and thus affirm this portion of the order appealed
on the reasoning of the district court. United States v.
Raynor, No. 2:11-cr-00159-RAJ-DEM-1 (E.D. Va. Dec. 23, 2015).
Regarding the appeal of the denial of Raynor’s § 2255
motion, 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
2
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
Raynor 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
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED IN PART;
DISMISSED IN PART
3