UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-6322
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
KEYSTON JAMORY WEST, a/k/a D, a/k/a Alonzo Green, a/k/a D-
Man,
Defendant – Appellant.
No. 11-6400
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
KEYSTON JAMORY WEST, a/k/a D, a/k/a Alonzo Green, a/k/a D-
Man,
Defendant – Appellant.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. John Preston Bailey,
Chief District Judge. (3:00-cr-00006-JPB-JES-2; 3:00-cr-00046-
JPB-JES-2: 3:05-cv-00103-JPB-JES)
Submitted: August 30, 2011 Decided: September 9, 2011
Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Keyston Jamory West, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Oliver Mucklow,
Assistant United States Attorney, Martinsburg, West Virginia,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
In No. 10-6322, Keyston Jamory West seeks to appeal
the district court’s orders (1) accepting the recommendation of
the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A.
§ 2255 (West Supp. 2011) motion; and (2) 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) (2006). 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) (2006). 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 West has not made the requisite showing.
Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss
the appeal.
3
In. No. 11-6400, West seeks to appeal the district
court’s order denying his motion for a certificate of
appealability with respect to his § 2255 motion. We conclude,
in light of our disposition in No. 10-6322, that the appeal is
moot. 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 the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
DISMISSED
4