Case ID: f-appx_699/html/0172-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Roger Van Santvoord CAMP, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 17-6657
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: October 5, 2017
    Decided: October 17, 2017
    Roger Van Santvoord Camp, Appellant Pro Se. G. Norman Acker, III, Seth Morgan Wood, Evan Rikhye, Assistant United States Attorneys, Banumathi Rangarajan, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
    Before KING, SHEDD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
   Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Roger Van Santvoord Camp seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion to obtain a “certificate of appeal” in his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) proceeding. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2258(c)(1)(B) (2012); Buck v. Davis, — U.S. -, 137 S.Ct. 759, 773, 197 L.Ed.2d 1 (2017). A certifícate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial- of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012).

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 Camp 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