UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-6872
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
GARY D’ANGELO MCDUFFIE,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema,
District Judge. (1:99-cr-00203-LMB-1)
Submitted: October 13, 2016 Decided: October 18, 2016
Before NIEMEYER, DUNCAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed in part, affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.
Gary D’Angelo McDuffie, Appellant Pro Se. Christopher John
Catizone, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria,
Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Gary D’Angelo McDuffie seeks to appeal the district court’s
order denying, in part, and dismissing, in part, McDuffie’s
motion seeking habeas relief, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255
(2012), or in the alternative, for a new trial, as well as the
district court’s orders denying McDuffie’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e)
motion and motion for clarification. We dismiss in part, and
affirm in part.
As to the district court’s orders denying McDuffie’s § 2255
motion and denying McDuffie’s motion for clarification of the
district court’s order denying habeas relief, these orders are
not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a
certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012).
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) (2012). 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
2
claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S.
at 484-85. We have independently reviewed the record and
conclude that McDuffie has not made the requisite showing.
Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss
the appeal, in part.
To the extent McDuffie appeals the district court’s orders
denying the motion for a new trial and Rule 59(e) motion, we
discern no error. We thus affirm, in part. See United States
v. McDuffie, No. 1:99-cr-00203-LMB-1 (E.D. Va. Mar. 21, 2016;
Apr. 28, 2016). 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 IN PART;
AFFIRMED IN PART
3