Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-16-06925/USCOURTS-ca4-16-06925-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Derrick Donnell Mabry
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6925

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

DERRICK DONNELL MABRY, a/k/a Mayberry,

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. (5:12-cr-00275-D-1; 5:15-cv-00578-D)

Submitted: December 8, 2016 Decided: December 20, 2016

Before NIEMEYER and KING, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed in part; affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam 

opinion.

Derrick Donnell Mabry, Appellant Pro Se. Eric David Goulian, 

Seth Morgan Wood, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Patrick 

Benton Weede, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, 

North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-6925 Doc: 9 Filed: 12/20/2016 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Derrick Donnell Mabry seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion and 

his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012) motion. After a review of the 

record, we dismiss in part and affirm in part. 

Regarding his § 2255 motion, this portion of 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 

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

Appeal: 16-6925 Doc: 9 Filed: 12/20/2016 Pg: 2 of 3
3

a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal of the 

denial of Mabry’s § 2255 motion.

Turning to Mabry’s § 3582(c)(2) motion, we conclude that 

the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the 

motion. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the 

district court. United States v. Mabry, No. 5:12-cr-00275-D-1 

(E.D.N.C. June 28, 2016). We dispense with oral argument 

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented 

in the materials before this court and argument would not aid 

the decisional process.

DISMISSED IN PART;

AFFIRMED IN PART

Appeal: 16-6925 Doc: 9 Filed: 12/20/2016 Pg: 3 of 3