United States of America v. Ryan Christopher Fultz

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 17-6948
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
RYAN CHRISTOPHER FULTZ,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Newport News. Henry Coke Morgan, Jr., Senior District Judge. (4:13-cr-00026-HCM-
DEM-1; 4:16-cv-00035-HCM)
Submitted: October 19, 2017 Decided: October 24, 2017
Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Ryan Christopher Fultz, Appellant Pro Se. Kaitlin Courtney Gratton, Assistant United
States Attorney, Timothy Richard Murphy, Special Assistant United States Attorney,
Newport News, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Ryan Christopher Fultz seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying relief on
his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion and denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion. The
orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of
appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). 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) (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, 529 U.S.
473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (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, 529 U.S. at 484-85.
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Fultz 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 of 2 --