United States v. Lasalle Boone

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-7013

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

LASALLE BOONE,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, Chief
District Judge. (2:07-cr-00145-RBS-FBS-1; 2:12-cv-00054-RBS)

Submitted: September 11, 2012 Decided: September 13, 2012

Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Lasalle Boone, Appellant Pro Se. Sherrie Scott Capotosto,
Assistant United States Attorney, Amy E. Cross, Andrew Murdock
Robbins, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Elizabeth
Bartlett Fitzwater, Special Assistant United States Attorney,
Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

Lasalle Boone seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2012)

motion and its subsequent order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P.

59(e) motion seeking to alter or amend the judgment. 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 Boone has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we

deny his motion for a certificate of appealability and dismiss

the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts

2
and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

DISMISSED