USCA4 Appeal: 24-6032 Doc: 11 Filed: 11/22/2024 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24-6032

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

PAUL ALEXANDER, a/k/a David Paul Hayes, a/k/a Shorty,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Richard D. Bennett, Senior District Judge. (1:19-cr-00020-RDB-1; 1:22-cv-02577-RDB)

Submitted: November 19, 2024 Decided: November 22, 2024

Before QUATTLEBAUM, RUSHING, and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Paul Alexander, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 24-6032 Doc: 11 Filed: 11/22/2024 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

Paul Alexander seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying relief on both his

motion and Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion for reconsideration. The orders

are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See

(c)(1)(B). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.”

(c)(2). When

the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by

demonstrating that reasonable jurists could 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 Alexander 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