Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-14-07765/USCOURTS-ca4-14-07765-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Reginald Anthony Falice
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-7765

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

REGINALD ANTHONY FALICE,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, 

Senior District Judge. (3:98-cr-00244-GCM-1; 3:14-cv-00640-GCM)

Submitted: April 16, 2015 Decided: April 20, 2015

Before AGEE and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Reginald Anthony Falice, Appellant Pro Se. Sidney P. Alexander, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Paul Brad Taylor, OFFICE OF 

THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Asheville, North Carolina; Gretchen 

C. F. Shappert, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, 

D.C., for the Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-7765 Doc: 12 Filed: 04/20/2015 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Reginald Anthony Falice seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order dismissing as successive 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 

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

a certificate of appealability, deny permission to proceed in 

forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 

Appeal: 14-7765 Doc: 12 Filed: 04/20/2015 Pg: 2 of 3
3

presented in the materials before this court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 14-7765 Doc: 12 Filed: 04/20/2015 Pg: 3 of 3