Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-07002/USCOURTS-ca4-15-07002-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Clayton Doyle Bullin
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7002

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

CLAYTON DOYLE BULLIN, a/k/a Doyle Bullin,

 Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L. 

Voorhees, District Judge. (5:04-cr-00043-RLV-DCK-2; 

5:15-cv-00012-RLV)

Submitted: October 20, 2015 Decided: October 23, 2015

Before MOTZ, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Clayton Doyle Bullin, Appellant Pro Se. Elizabeth Margaret 

Greenough, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, 

North Carolina; Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States 

Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-7002 Doc: 9 Filed: 10/23/2015 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Clayton Doyle Bullin 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 

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

Bullin’s 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 materials 

Appeal: 15-7002 Doc: 9 Filed: 10/23/2015 Pg: 2 of 3
3

before this court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 15-7002 Doc: 9 Filed: 10/23/2015 Pg: 3 of 3