UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-6118
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ROGER CHARLES DAY, JR.,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 16-6478
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ROGER CHARLES DAY, JR.,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. John A. Gibney, Jr., District
Judge. (3:07-cr-00154-JAG-3; 3:14-cv-00305-JAG)
Submitted: August 30, 2016 Decided: September 13, 2016
Before SHEDD, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Roger Charles Day, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Ryan Scott Faulconer,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia; Laura
Colombell Marshall, Elizabeth Wu, Assistant United States
Attorneys, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
In these consolidated appeals, Roger Charles Day, Jr., seeks
to appeal the district court’s orders denying relief on his 28
U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion and denying his motion for
reconsideration. The orders are 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
Day has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a
certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeals. We dispense
with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
3
adequately presented in the materials before this court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
4