UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-6972
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
RICHARD LAMONT LIGHTY, a/k/a Black, a/k/a Young, a/k/a
Richard Dock, a/k/a Bro, a/k/a Richard Duck, a/k/a Melvin,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, District
Judge. (7:04-cr-00072-SGW-mfu-1; 7:11-cv-80334-SGW)
Submitted: December 20, 2011 Decided: December 23, 2011
Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Richard Lamont Lighty, Appellant Pro Se. Donald Ray Wolthuis,
Assistant United States Attorney, Rick A. Mountcastle, OFFICE OF
THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Richard Lamont Lighty seeks to appeal the district
court’s order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for
reconsideration of prior orders denying relief on his 28
U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2011) 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) (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 Lighty 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
2
before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
DISMISSED
3