United States of America v. Demetrius Lydell Bryant

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-6480
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DEMETRIUS LYDELL BRYANT,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior
District Judge. (5:05-cr-00221-F-1; 5:07-cv-00282-F)
Submitted: August 26, 2009 Decided: September 2, 2009
Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and GREGORY and SHEDD, Circuit
Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Demetrius Lydell Bryant, Appellant Pro Se. Anne Margaret Hayes,
Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Demetrius Lydell Bryant seeks to appeal the district
court’s orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West
Supp. 2009) 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)
(2006). 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) (2006). A prisoner satisfies this
standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find
that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district
court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural
ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El
v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529
U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th
Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and
conclude that Bryant has not made the requisite showing.
Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss
the appeal. We deny Bryant’s motion to stay the appeal. 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

-- 2 of 2 --