UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-7648
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
SCOTT E. LUELLEN,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Liam O’Grady, District
Judge. (1:08-cr-00102-LO-1; 1:09-cv-00681-LO)
Submitted: March 29, 2012 Decided: April 3, 2012
Before WILKINSON, KING, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Scott E. Luellen, Appellant Pro Se. Derek Andreson, OFFICE OF
THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Scott E. Luellen seeks to appeal the district court’s
order denying his motion for reconsideration, under Fed. R. Civ.
P. 60(b)(1), of the district court’s order 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 Luellen has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly,
we deny Luellen’s motion for a certificate of appealability and
dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the
2
facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
DISMISSED
3