UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-6875

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

CHARLES JERMAINE KEITT,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Orangeburg. Margaret B. Seymour, Chief District Judge. (5:07-cr-01020-MBS-1; 5:09-cv-70092-MBS)

Submitted: February 16, 2012 Decided: February 21, 2012

Before SHEDD, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Charles Jermaine Keitt, Appellant Pro Se. Stanley Duane Ragsdale, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:

Charles Jermaine Keitt seeks to appeal the district

court’s orders denying relief on his

(West

Supp. 2011) motion and denying his subsequent Fed. R. Civ. P.

59(e) motions for reconsideration. These orders are not

appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a

certificate of appealability.

(c)(1)(B) (2006).

A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.”

(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,

(2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell,

(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,

. We have independently reviewed the record and

conclude that Keitt 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

2 before the court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

DISMISSED

3