UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-6259
PATRICK L. BOOKER,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
MCKITHER BODISON,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Anderson. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (8:10-cv-01098-HMH)
Submitted: April 18, 2013 Decided: April 23, 2013
Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Patrick L. Booker, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka,
Senior Assistant Attorney General, Brendan McDonald, OFFICE OF
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Columbia, South
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Patrick L. Booker 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 and its subsequent order
denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion to alter or amend. 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.
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude
that Booker has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we
2
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
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3