Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-13-06974/USCOURTS-ca4-13-06974-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
United States of America
Appellee
Devares Antron Vick
Appellant

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-6974

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

DEVARES ANTRON VICK, a/k/a Red,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

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

Chief District Judge. (5:06-cr-00235-D-1; 5:11-cv-00508-D)

Submitted: January 22, 2015 Decided: January 26, 2015

Before SHEDD, KEENAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Devares Antron Vick, Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer P. May-Parker, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Kimberly Ann Moore, OFFICE OF 

THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 13-6974 Doc: 15 Filed: 01/26/2015 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Devares Antron Vick seeks to appeal the district 

court’s orders dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 

(2012) motion and 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)(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 Vick has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we 

deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We 

deny Vick’s motions to place the case in abeyance and appoint 

counsel. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and 

Appeal: 13-6974 Doc: 15 Filed: 01/26/2015 Pg: 2 of 3
3

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 

before this court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 13-6974 Doc: 15 Filed: 01/26/2015 Pg: 3 of 3