Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-16-06088/USCOURTS-ca4-16-06088-0/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UNPUBLISHED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. 16-6088

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

ANDRE L. CORBETT,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad, 

Jr., District Judge. (3:07-cr-00144-RJC-1; 3:13-cv-00298-RJC)

Submitted: September 15, 2016 Decided: September 29, 2016

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Andre L. Corbett, Appellant Pro Se. Kimlani M. Ford, Steven R. 

Kaufman, Assistant United States Attorneys, Charlotte, North 

Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-6088 Doc: 11 Filed: 09/29/2016 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Andre L. Corbett 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 

Corbett has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we 

deny a certificate of appealability, deny Corbett’s motions for 

abeyance and for appointment of counsel, and dismiss the appeal. 

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

Appeal: 16-6088 Doc: 11 Filed: 09/29/2016 Pg: 2 of 3
3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 16-6088 Doc: 11 Filed: 09/29/2016 Pg: 3 of 3