UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kamal Majeid WEBB, Defendant-Appellant, 471 F. App'x 131

PER CURIAM: Kamal Majeid Webb seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying his motions under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(

b) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e). These orders, which derive from the denial of his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2011) motion, are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (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).

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, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (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, 120 S.Ct. 1595. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Webb has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, although we grant Webb’s motion to amend his motion for a certificate of appealability, we deny the motion for a certificate of appealability, as amended, and dismiss 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.