United States of America v. Paul Alexander, a/k/a David Paul Hayes, a/k/a Shorty

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 24-6032
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
PAUL ALEXANDER, a/k/a David Paul Hayes, a/k/a Shorty,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
Richard D. Bennett, Senior District Judge. (1:19-cr-00020-RDB-1; 1:22-cv-02577-RDB)
Submitted: November 19, 2024 Decided: November 22, 2024
Before QUATTLEBAUM, RUSHING, and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Paul Alexander, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Paul Alexander seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying relief on both his
28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion and Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion for reconsideration. The orders
are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B). 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 motion 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 Alexander has not made
the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the
appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
DISMISSED

-- 2 of 2 --