UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-6210
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JERRY LEE MERCER,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior
District Judge. (5:05-cr-00305-BR-1; 5:12-cv-00535-BR)
Submitted: May 23, 2013 Decided: May 29, 2013
Before MOTZ and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jerry Lee Mercer, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Jerry Lee Mercer seeks to appeal the district court’s
order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2012)
motion and 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 construe Mercer’s February 11, 2013, notice of appeal
together with his motion filed in the district court on
December 18, 2013, to grant “permission to file a petition to
the Appeals Court for a ‘Certificate of Appealability,’” as a
notice of appeal from the district court’s orders denying
Mercer’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) and § 2255 motions.
2
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude
that Mercer 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
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3