USCA4 Appeal: 24-6728 Doc: 11 Filed: 04/03/2025 Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24-6728

PIERRE ALEXANDER AMERSON, Petitioner - Appellant, v. TODD E. ISHEE, Director; TIMOTHY D. MOOSE, Chief Deputy Secretary, Respondents - Appellees.

No. 24-7214

PIERRE ALEXANDER AMERSON, Petitioner - Appellant, v. TODD E. ISHEE, Director; TIMOTHY D. MOOSE, Chief Deputy Secretary, Respondents - Appellees.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder, District Judge. (1:23-cv-00579-TDS-JLW)

Submitted: February 10, 2025 Decided: April 3, 2025 USCA4 Appeal: 24-6728 Doc: 11 Filed: 04/03/2025 Pg: 2 of 4

Before KING and BERNER, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Pierre Alexander Amerson, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 24-6728 Doc: 11 Filed: 04/03/2025 Pg: 3 of 4

PER CURIAM: In these consolidated cases, Pierre Alexander Amerson, a North Carolina inmate who is serving a sentence of life without parole, seeks to appeal the district court’s orders (a) accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on Amerson’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition; and (b) denying Amerson’s “true” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for relief from judgment in which Amerson alleged errors in the habeas proceeding. The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A); see United States v. McRae, 793 F.3d 392, 399-400 & n.7 (4th Cir. 2015) (concerning the certificate of appealability requirement in the context of a “true” Rule 60(b) motion). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(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, 580 U.S. 100, 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, 565 U.S. 134, 140-41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)).

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Amerson has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the consolidated appeals. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

USCA4 Appeal: 24-6728 Doc: 11 Filed: 04/03/2025 Pg: 4 of 4

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED