UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-7243

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

ANDREW WAYNE LANDELLS, a/k/a Herbert Hill, a/k/a John Watson, a/k/a John Lee, a/k/a Michael Munoz, a/k/a Mark Sierra,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (5:13-cr-00040-D-1; 5:17-cv-00022-D)

Submitted: February 20, 2020 Decided: February 24, 2020

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, RUSHING, Circuit Judge, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Andrew Wayne Landells, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Andrew Wayne Landells seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his Fed.

R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for relief from the district court’s prior order denying relief on his

(2018) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or

judge issues a certificate of appealability.

(c)(1)(B) (2018). See generally

United States v. McRae,

, 400 & n.7 (4th Cir. 2015). A certificate of

appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional

right.”

(c)(2) (2018). When the district court denies relief on the merits,

a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find the

district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v.

Davis,

(2017). 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.

Gonzalez v. Thaler,

(2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel,

(2000)).

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Landells 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 this court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

DISMISSED

2