UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-7181

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

DERRICK KEITH USSERY, SR., a/k/a Boogaloo,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Greenville. Malcolm J. Howard, Senior District Judge. (4:10-cr-00030-H-1; 4:12-cv-00175-H)

Submitted: January 31, 2014 Decided: February 20, 2014

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Derrick Keith Ussery, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer P. May-Parker, Evan Rikhye, Assistant United States Attorneys, Joshua Bryan Royster, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Derrick K. Ussery, Sr., seeks to appeal the district

court’s orders denying relief on his

(2012)

motion and 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 Ussery has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we

deny a certificate of appealability, deny as moot Ussery’s

motion to place his case in abeyance pending our decision in

Miller v. United States,

(4th Cir. as moot, and

2 dismiss the appeal. 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