Pierre Alexander Amerson v. TODD E. ISHEE, Director; TIMOTHY D. MOOSE, Chief Deputy Secretary

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 24-6728
PIERRE ALEXANDER AMERSON,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
TODD E. ISHEE, Director; TIMOTHY D. MOOSE, Chief Deputy Secretary,
Respondents - Appellees.
No. 24-7214
PIERRE ALEXANDER AMERSON,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
TODD E. ISHEE, Director; TIMOTHY D. MOOSE, Chief Deputy Secretary,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at
Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder, District Judge. (1:23-cv-00579-TDS-JLW)
Submitted: February 10, 2025 Decided: April 3, 2025

-- 1 of 4 --

2
Before KING and BERNER, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Pierre Alexander Amerson, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 2 of 4 --

3
PER CURIAM:
In these consolidated cases, Pierre Alexander Amerson, a North Carolina inmate
who is serving a sentence of life without parole, seeks to appeal the district court’s orders
(a) accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on Amerson’s
28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition; and (b) denying Amerson’s “true” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion
for relief from judgment in which Amerson alleged errors in the habeas proceeding. The
orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of
appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A); see United States v. McRae, 793 F.3d 392,
399-400 & n.7 (4th Cir. 2015) (concerning the certificate of appealability requirement in
the context of a “true” Rule 60(b) motion). 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 could find the district court’s assessment
of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v. Davis, 580 U.S. 100, 115-17
(2017). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must
demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable and that the petition
states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S.
134, 140-41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)).
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Amerson has not
made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and
dismiss the consolidated appeals. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

-- 3 of 4 --

4
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument
would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED

-- 4 of 4 --