Case ID: f-appx_684/html/0273-01.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. Dawantaye BOSWELL, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 16-7606
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: March 30, 2017
    Decided: April 4, 2017
    Dawantaye Boswell, Appellant Pro Se.
    Shawn Michael Adkins, Assistant United States Attorney, Martinsburg, West Virginia, Randolph John Bernard, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, John Castle Parr, Assistant United States Attorney, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Ap-pellee.
    Before TRAXLER and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
   Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Dawantaye Boswell seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and 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 ap-pealability 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 Boswell has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny Boswell’s motions for appointment of counsel, 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