Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-09-08157/USCOURTS-ca4-09-08157-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
United States of America
Appellee
Kevin Washington
Appellant

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-8157

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

KEVIN WASHINGTON,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard,

Senior District Judge. (5:05-cr-00251-H-1; 5:08-cv-00371-H)

Submitted: July 27, 2010 Decided: August 4, 2010

Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and WILKINSON and KEENAN, Circuit 

Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kevin Washington, Appellant Pro Se. Rudolf A. Renfer, Jr., 

Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 09-8157 Doc: 11 Filed: 08/04/2010 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Kevin Washington seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2010) 

motion. The order is 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 Washington has not made the requisite showing. 

Accordingly, we deny Washington’s motion for a certificate of 

appealability and dismiss the appeal. We deny Washington’s 

motion for appointment of counsel. We dispense with oral 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 

Appeal: 09-8157 Doc: 11 Filed: 08/04/2010 Pg: 2 of 3
3

presented in the materials before the court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 09-8157 Doc: 11 Filed: 08/04/2010 Pg: 3 of 3