Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-16-07561/USCOURTS-ca4-16-07561-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 510
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Vacate Sentence
Cause of Action: 

---

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-7561

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

RAYMOND LEE DEAN, III,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at 

Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (5:07-cr-00023-FL-1; 5:16-cv-00398-FL)

Submitted: March 17, 2017 Decided: March 22, 2017

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, HARRIS, Circuit Judge, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit 

Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Sherri Royall Alspaugh, Eric Joseph Brignac, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC 

DEFENDER, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. Gaston Williams, OFFICE OF 

THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Seth Morgan Wood, Assistant United States 

Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-7561 Doc: 11 Filed: 03/22/2017 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Raymond Lee Dean, III, seeks to appeal the district court’s 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) (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 (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 denial of a 

constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Dean has not made 

the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny the motion for 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

Appeal: 16-7561 Doc: 11 Filed: 03/22/2017 Pg: 2 of 2