UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-7548
AARON LAMONT BARNES,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
JAMES S. GILMORE,
Respondent – Appellee.
No. 12-6398
AARON LAMONT BARNES,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
JAMES S. GILMORE,
Respondent – Appellee.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior
District Judge. (1:98-cv-00703-JCC)
Submitted: May 24, 2012 Decided: May 30, 2012
Before MOTZ and DAVIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Aaron Lamont Barnes, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
Aaron Lamont Barnes seeks to appeal the district
court’s order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for
reconsideration of the district court’s order denying relief on
his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition (No. 11-7548), and the
district court’s order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion
for reconsideration of that order (No. 12-6398). The orders are
not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a
certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2006);
Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 369 (4th Cir. 2004). 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 petition states a debatable
claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S.
at 484-85.
3
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude
that Barnes has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we
deny Barnes’ motion to hold Appeal No. 11-7548 in abeyance, deny
a certificate of appealability, and dismiss the appeals. 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