Pierre Amerson v. Todd Ishee

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: April 3, 2025
• Docket: 24-7214
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 24-7214 Doc: 7 Filed: 04/03/2025 Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED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

TODD E. ISHEE, Director; TIMOTHY D. MOOSE, Chief Deputy Secretary,

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 USCA4 Appeal: 24-7214 Doc: 7 Filed: 04/03/2025 Pg: 2 of 4

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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 USCA4 Appeal: 24-7214 Doc: 7 Filed: 04/03/2025 Pg: 3 of 4

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 USCA4 Appeal: 24-7214 Doc: 7 Filed: 04/03/2025 Pg: 4 of 4

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument

would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED