Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-07629/USCOURTS-ca4-15-07629-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Carlton A. Edwards
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7629

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

CARLTON A. EDWARDS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior 

District Judge. (3:11-cr-00100-REP-RCY-1; 3:13-cv-00371-REPRCY)

Submitted: March 29, 2016 Decided: March 31, 2016

Before GREGORY and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Carlton A. Edwards, Appellant Pro Se. Katherine Lee Martin, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for 

Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-7629 Doc: 8 Filed: 03/31/2016 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Carlton A. 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 a certificate of appealability, grant Edwards’ motion to 

seal, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument 

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented 

Appeal: 15-7629 Doc: 8 Filed: 03/31/2016 Pg: 2 of 3
3

in the materials before this court and argument would not aid 

the decisional process.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 15-7629 Doc: 8 Filed: 03/31/2016 Pg: 3 of 3