Certiorari dismissed by Supreme Court, November 4, 2013

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-8018

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

EDWARD DANE JEFFUS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., Senior District Judge. (6:92-cr-00184-NCT-2; 1:11-cv— 00326-NCT-JEP)

Submitted: February 21, 2013 Decided: February 26, 2013

Before AGEE and DAVIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Edward Dane Jeffus, Appellant Pro Se. Angela Hewlett Miller, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina; Paul Alexander Weinman, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Edward Dane Jeffus seeks to appeal the district

court’s orders: (1) accepting the recommendation of the

magistrate judge and denying Jeffus’ “Motion for Relief from

Judgment and Specific Performance/Enforcement of Plea Agreement

and/or Independent Action in Equity” and his “Complaint for

Independent Action in Equity” in part and denying these motions

in part as successive

(West Supp. 2012)

motions, and denying his “Motion for Summary Judgment” and

“Motion for a Ruling on Motion to Suppress and/or Review on the

Issue Preserved;” and (2) denying his motion to alter or amend

judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e).

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

2 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 Jeffus has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we

deny Jeffus’ motion for appointment of counsel, deny his motion

for a certificate of appealability, and dismiss the appeal. We

also deny his pending motion to compel the U.S. Attorney to file

a response and to supplement the record. 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

3