Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-14-07415/USCOURTS-ca4-14-07415-0/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UNPUBLISHED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. 14-7415

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

QUADRICK MONTRELL EVERETTE, a/k/a Quat,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Greenville. James C. Dever, III, 

Chief District Judge. (4:10-cr-00043-D-1; 4:14-cv-00113-D)

Submitted: February 12, 2015 Decided: February 18, 2015

Before MOTZ, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Quadrick Montrell Everette, Appellant Pro Se. William Glenn 

Perry, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville, North 

Carolina; Seth Morgan Wood, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES 

ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-7415 Doc: 13 Filed: 02/18/2015 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Quadrick Montrell Everette seeks to appeal the 

district court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) 

motion as successive. 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 Everette 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 

Appeal: 14-7415 Doc: 13 Filed: 02/18/2015 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: 14-7415 Doc: 13 Filed: 02/18/2015 Pg: 3 of 3