Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-16-06985/USCOURTS-ca4-16-06985-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Dellonte Rashaun Seburn
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6985

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

DELLONTE RASHAUN SEBURN,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever III, Chief 

District Judge. (5:13-cr-00005-D-1; 5:15-cv-00204-D)

Submitted: February 23, 2017 Decided: February 27, 2017

Before SHEDD and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit 

Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Dellonte Rashaun Seburn, Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer P. May-Parker, 

Roberto Francisco Ramirez, Assistant United States Attorneys, 

Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-6985 Doc: 17 Filed: 02/27/2017 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Dellonte Rashaun Seburn 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 

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

a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 

Additionally, we deny Seburn’s motion for appointment of counsel 

and to remand or suspend the certificate of appealability review. 

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

Appeal: 16-6985 Doc: 17 Filed: 02/27/2017 Pg: 2 of 3
3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 16-6985 Doc: 17 Filed: 02/27/2017 Pg: 3 of 3