Opinion
No. 16-6118 No. 16-6478
09-13-2016
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ROGER CHARLES DAY, JR., Defendant - Appellant.
Roger Charles Day, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Ryan Scott Faulconer, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia; Laura Colombell Marshall, Elizabeth Wu, Assistant United States Attorneys, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
UNPUBLISHED Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. John A. Gibney, Jr., District Judge. (3:07-cr-00154-JAG-3; 3:14-cv-00305-JAG) Before SHEDD, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Roger Charles Day, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Ryan Scott Faulconer, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia; Laura Colombell Marshall, Elizabeth Wu, Assistant United States Attorneys, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:
In these consolidated appeals, Roger Charles Day, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court's orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (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) (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 claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85.
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Day has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeals. 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