UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6636

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

RAYMOND EDWARD CHESTNUT, a/k/a Snoop, a/k/a Ray,

Defendant - Appellant.

No. 15-6641

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

RAYMOND EDWARD CHESTNUT, a/k/a Snoop, a/k/a Ray,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge. (4:05-cr-01044-RBH-1)

Submitted: October 15, 2015 Decided: October 19, 2015

Amended: November 18, 2016 Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

No. 15-6636 affirmed, and No. 15-6641, dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Raymond Edward Chestnut, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Frank Daley, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina; Arthur Bradley Parham, Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2 PER CURIAM:

These consolidated appeals challenge two district court

orders denying relief on several postjudgment motions concerning

Raymond Edward Chestnut’s criminal judgment. We affirm the

district court’s order in No. 15-6636, and dismiss the appeal in

No. 15-6641.

Turning first to No. 15-6636, Chestnut appeals the denial

of his motion. We have reviewed the record and find no

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm.

In No. 15-6641, Chestnut seeks to appeal the district

court’s order dismissing his

(2012) motion

without prejudice as successive and unauthorized. The order is

not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a

certificate of appealability.

(c)(1)(B) (2012).

A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.”

(c)(2) (2012). 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

3 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

Chestnut has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we

deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal in

No. 15-6641.

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.

No. 15-6636 AFFIRMED No. 15-6641 DISMISSED

4