Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-16-06415/USCOURTS-ca4-16-06415-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Robert Lee McQueen
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6415

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

ROBERT LEE MCQUEEN, a/k/a Preacher,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior 

District Judge. (5:09-cr-00253-F-1; 5:12-cv-00693-F)

Submitted: August 30, 2016 Decided: September 8, 2016

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, MOTZ, Circuit Judge, and DAVIS, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robert Lee McQueen, Appellant Pro Se. Kristine L. Fritz, Tobin 

Webb Lathan, Seth Morgan Wood, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES 

ATTORNEY, Rudolf A. Renfer, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, 

Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-6415 Doc: 10 Filed: 09/08/2016 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Robert Lee McQueen 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

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

a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We deny 

McQueen’s motions for a copy of the transcript of the evidentiary 

hearing and for an emergency medical procedure, both at the 

Government’s expense, and to amend his petition for a certificate 

of appealability. We dispense with oral argument because the facts 

Appeal: 16-6415 Doc: 10 Filed: 09/08/2016 Pg: 2 of 3
3

and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 

before this court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 16-6415 Doc: 10 Filed: 09/08/2016 Pg: 3 of 3