UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-7450
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
HENRY RAYFORD PRIVETTE, JR., a/k/a H. R. Privette, a/k/a Ray
Picard, d/b/a Carolina Furniture, Incorporated, d/b/a
carolinafurniture.com, d/b/a Henry Ray Furniture Export,
Incorporated, d/b/a Carolina Furniture Factory Direct from
High Point, NC, Incorporated, d/b/a Miller Burns
International Home Furnishings, Ltd.,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle,
District Judge. (7:07-cr-00133-BO-1; 7:11-cv-00145-BO)
Submitted: December 20, 2012 Decided: January 14, 2013
Before NIEMEYER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Henry Rayford Privette, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer P. May-
Parker, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Henry Rayford Privette, Jr., seeks to appeal the
district court’s orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255
(West Supp. 2012) motion and denying his 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 Privette has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly,
we deny the motion for a certificate of appealability and
dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the
facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
2
materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
DISMISSED
3