Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-16-06763/USCOURTS-ca4-16-06763-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Bobbie Ray Edwards
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6763

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

BOBBIE RAY EDWARDS, a/k/a Tank,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Newport News. Arenda L. Wright Allen, 

District Judge. (4:11-cr-00055-AWA-DEM-10; 4:14-cv-00050-AWA)

Submitted: December 14, 2016 Decided: December 22, 2016

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Bobbie Ray Edwards, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Edward Bradenham, 

II, Assistant United States Attorney, Newport News, Virginia; 

Dee Mullarkey Sterling, Assistant United States Attorney, 

Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-6763 Doc: 7 Filed: 12/22/2016 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Bobbie Ray Edwards seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order denying relief on 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 

Edwards has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we 

deny Edwards’ motion for a certificate of appealability and 

dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the 

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 

Appeal: 16-6763 Doc: 7 Filed: 12/22/2016 Pg: 2 of 3
3

materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 16-6763 Doc: 7 Filed: 12/22/2016 Pg: 3 of 3