UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-7184
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JAMES EDWARD BLACKMON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Margaret B. Seymour, Chief
District Judge. (0:03-cr-01004-MBS-1)
Submitted: November 20, 2012 Decided: November 27, 2012
Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and SHEDD and FLOYD, Circuit
Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jeffrey Michael Brandt, ROBINSON & BRANDT, PSC, Covington,
Kentucky, for Appellant. William Kenneth Witherspoon, Assistant
United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
James Edward Blackmon seeks to appeal the district
court’s order denying relief on his self-styled 28 U.S.C. § 1651
(2006) motion, which Blackmon concedes the district court
correctly treated as a 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2012)
motion. Blackmon also seeks to appeal the district court’s
order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion. * 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
*
Although Blackmon styled his motion a Fed. R. Civ. P.
60(b)(1) motion, because the motion was filed within twenty-
eight days of the district court’s dismissal order and sought
reconsideration of that order, we treat the motion as a Rule
59(e) motion.
2
claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S.
at 484-85.
After confining our review to the issues raised in
Blackmon’s informal brief, see 4th Cir. R. 34(b), we conclude
that Blackmon 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 before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3