UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-6307
JERMAINE LORENZO PICKETT,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
DIRECTOR, VADOC,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Glen E. Conrad, Chief
District Judge. (7:16-cv-00024-GEC-RSB)
Submitted: May 18, 2016 Decided: May 23, 2016
Before SHEDD, DIAZ, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jermaine Lorenzo Pickett, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jermaine Lorenzo Pickett seeks to appeal the district
court’s orders dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition
as successive and denying his motion for reconsideration. * These
orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge
issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(1)(A) (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 petition states a
debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack,
529 U.S. at 484-85.
*
Because Pickett’s motion was filed within 28 days after
entry of the district court’s dismissal order, it is properly
construed as a Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion, rather than a Fed.
R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e).
2
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that
Pickett has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we
deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in
forma pauperis, 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.
DISMISSED
3