UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-7149

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

CORY NEWMAN,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., Senior District Judge. (6:04-cr-01127-GRA-8; 6:12-cv-01431-GRA)

Submitted: November 2, 2012 Decided: November 6, 2012

Before WILKINSON, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Cory Newman, Appellant Pro Se. Carrie Fisher Sherard, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Cory Newman seeks to appeal the district court’s order

denying his motion to amend his previously denied

(West Supp. 2012) motion and its subsequent order denying

his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for reconsideration. The

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 Newman 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

2 contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

3