Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-09-07860/USCOURTS-ca4-09-07860-0/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UNPUBLISHED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. 09-7860

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

PAUL HORNER EMORY, III,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior

District Judge. (7:03-cr-00014-BR-1)

Submitted: June 1, 2010 Decided: June 4, 2010

Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Paul Horner Emory, III, Appellant Pro Se. Steve R. Matheny, 

Thomas B. Murphy, Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh, 

North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 09-7860 Doc: 14 Filed: 06/04/2010 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Paul Horner Emory, III, seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order denying relief on his “Motion for Relief from 

Constitutional Violations,” which the district court construed 

as a motion under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2009), and 

denied on the ground that Emory failed to obtain authorization 

to file it. Emory also seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order denying reconsideration. The orders are not appealable 

unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of 

appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). 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) 

(2006). 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 

Emory has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny 

Appeal: 09-7860 Doc: 14 Filed: 06/04/2010 Pg: 2 of 3
3

a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We deny 

as moot Emory’s motion for a limited remand and dispense with 

oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 

adequately presented in the materials before the court and 

argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 09-7860 Doc: 14 Filed: 06/04/2010 Pg: 3 of 3