US v. Larry Frye

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--updating certificate of appealability status Originating case number: 3:07-cr-00247-HEH-1,3:10-cv-00678-HEH Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999385833]. Mailed to: Larry Donnell Frye. [14-6574]

Appeal: 14-6574

Doc: 6

Filed: 06/30/2014

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-6574

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
LARRY DONNELL FRYE,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond.
Henry E. Hudson, District
Judge. (3:07-cr-00247-HEH-1; 3:10-cv-00678-HEH)

Submitted:

June 26, 2014

Decided:

June 30, 2014

Before WILKINSON, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Larry Donnell Frye, Appellant Pro Se.
Elizabeth Wu, Assistant
United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-6574

Doc: 6

Filed: 06/30/2014

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Larry

Donnell

Frye

seeks

to

appeal

the

district

court’s order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion to alter
or amend the court’s prior order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255 (2012) motion.

The order is 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).

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

constitutional claims is debatable or wrong.

of

the

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

right.

denial

of

a

constitutional

Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85.
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude

that Frye has not made the requisite showing.
deny

a

certificate

We dispense

with

of

oral

appealability
argument

2

and

because

Accordingly, we

dismiss
the

the

facts

appeal.

and

legal

Appeal: 14-6574

Doc: 6

contentions

Filed: 06/30/2014

are

adequately

Pg: 3 of 3

presented

in

the

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

3