
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Thomas Tray Sharmone KEARNEY, Defendant-Appellant. United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Thomas Tray Sharmone Kearney, Defendant-Appellant. United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Thomas Tray Sharmone Kearney, Defendant-Appellant.
    Nos. 10-6907, 10-7168, 10-7367.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Feb. 14, 2011.
    Decided: March 21, 2011.
    Thomas Tray Sharmone Kearney, Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer P. May-Parker, Rudolf A. Renfer, Jr., Assistant United States Attorneys, Seth Morgan Wood, Office of the United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
    Before WILKINSON and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
   Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

In these consolidated cases, Thomas Tray Sharmone Kearney seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2010) motion, and its denial of Kearney’s motions to reconsider and other post-judgment motions.

The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006); see Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 369 (4th Cir.2004). 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 Kearney has not made the showing required for issuance of a certificate of appealability. We therefore deny certificates of appealability and dismiss the appeals. We deny Kearney’s motion to redact the opinion. 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.  