UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-7184

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

JAMES EDWARD BLACKMON,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Margaret B. Seymour, Chief District Judge. (0:03-cr-01004-MBS-1)

Submitted: November 20, 2012 Decided: November 27, 2012

Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and SHEDD and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jeffrey Michael Brandt, ROBINSON & BRANDT, PSC, Covington, Kentucky, for Appellant. William Kenneth Witherspoon, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

James Edward Blackmon seeks to appeal the district

court’s order denying relief on his self-styled

(2006) motion, which Blackmon concedes the district court

correctly treated as a

(West Supp. 2012)

motion. Blackmon also seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion. * 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

* Although Blackmon styled his motion a Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1) motion, because the motion was filed within twenty- eight days of the district court’s dismissal order and sought reconsideration of that order, we treat the motion as a Rule 59(e) motion.

2 claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack,

.

After confining our review to the issues raised in

Blackmon’s informal brief, see 4th Cir. R. 34(b), we conclude

that Blackmon 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 the

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

3