US v. Larry Frye, No. 14-6574 (4th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-6574 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. LARRY DONNELL FRYE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District Judge. (3:07-cr-00247-HEH-1; 3:10-cv-00678-HEH) Submitted: June 26, 2014 Decided: June 30, 2014 Before WILKINSON, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Larry Donnell Frye, Appellant Pro Se. Elizabeth Wu, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Larry Donnell Frye seeks to appeal the district court s order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion to alter or amend the court s prior order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). 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 would find that the district court s assessment constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. of the Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (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 right. denial of a constitutional Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Frye has not made the requisite showing. deny a certificate We dispense with of oral appealability argument 2 and because Accordingly, we dismiss the the facts appeal. and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
