UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-6948

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

EDWARD DANE JEFFUS,

Defendant - Appellant.

No. 18-7000

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

EDWARD DANE JEFFUS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeals 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; 1:16-cv-00085-NCT-JEP; 1:16-cv-01276-NCT-JEP)

Submitted: December 18, 2018 Decided: December 26, 2018

Before NIEMEYER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Edward Dane Jeffus, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2 PER CURIAM:

In these consolidated appeals, Edward Dane Jeffus seeks to appeal the district

court’s orders accepting the recommendations of the magistrate judge and dismissing his

“Motion for Indicative Ruling” and “Motion for Modification and/or Clarification of

Sentence” as unauthorized and successive

(2012) motions. The orders

are 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 ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim

of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack,

.

We have independently reviewed the records and conclude that Jeffus has not

made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny certificates of appealability, deny

leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeals. 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