UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-7191
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
WAYNE VINSON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia. Cameron McGowan Currie, District
Judge. (3:06-cr-01170-CMC-1; 3:10-cv-70308-CMC)
Submitted: January 18, 2012 Decided: February 3, 2012
Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Wayne Vinson, Appellant Pro Se. Jeffrey Mikell Johnson, OFFICE
OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Wayne Vinson seeks to appeal the district court’s
order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2011)
motion and his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) 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) (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 Vinson has not made the requisite showing.
Accordingly, we deny Vinson’s motion for 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