UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-6930
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JOHN DAVID ANDERSON, JR.,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Benson Everett Legg, District Judge.
(1:00-cr-00033-BEL-1; 1:07-cv-00234-BEL)
Submitted: November 8, 2011 Decided: December 8, 2011
Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
John David Anderson, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Martin Joseph
Clarke, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
John David Anderson, Jr., seeks to appeal the district
court’s orders denying his motion for reconsideration and his
Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(3), (6) motion for relief from the
district court’s orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255
(West Supp. 2011) motion. The orders are not appealable unless
a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of
appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (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).
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 Anderson 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
2
presented in the materials before the court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3