United States of America v. Jerry L. Frierson

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-7109
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
JERRY L. FRIERSON,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 05-7249
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
JERRY L. FRIERSON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia. Cameron McGowan Currie, District
Judge. (CR-03-631; CA-04-22984)
Submitted: November 28, 2005 Decided: December 14, 2005
Before WILKINSON and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

-- 1 of 3 --

- 2 -
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jerry L. Frierson, Appellant Pro Se. Leesa Washington, OFFICE OF
THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).

-- 2 of 3 --

- 3 -
PER CURIAM:
In these consolidated appeals, Jerry L. Frierson, a
federal prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court’s orders
denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion and denying
reconsideration under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e), 60(b). The orders are
not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a
certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000); see
Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363 (4th Cir. 2004). 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) (2000).
This standard is satisfied by demonstrating that reasonable jurists
would find the district court’s assessment of Frierson’s
constitutional claims debatable and that any dispositive procedural
rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. See
Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel,
529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir.
2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that
Frierson has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny
a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeals. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions
are adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED

-- 3 of 3 --