USCA4 Appeal: 23-7080 Doc: 14 Filed: 02/27/2024 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-7080

DREW C. HARTLEY,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA; SHERIFF OF ONSLOW COUNTY,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (5:23-hc-02113-D)

Submitted: February 22, 2024 Decided: February 27, 2024

Before NIEMEYER and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Drew C. Hartley, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 23-7080 Doc: 14 Filed: 02/27/2024 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

Drew C. Hartley, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying

relief on his

petition and denying his 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.

(c)(1)(A). 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,

, 115-17

(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 petition

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 Hartley has not made

the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the

appeal. We also deny all of Hartley’s pending motions. 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