Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-13-06669/USCOURTS-ca4-13-06669-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Everette Atkinson
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-6669

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

EVERETTE ATKINSON, a/k/a Rick,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, 

District Judge. (5:05-cr-00009-FL-1; 5:12-cv-00283-FL)

Submitted: January 20, 2015 Decided: February 3, 2015

Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Everette Atkinson, Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer P. May-Parker, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Kristine L. Fritz, Banumathi 

Rangarajan, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North 

Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 13-6669 Doc: 14 Filed: 02/03/2015 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Everette Atkinson seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and 

dismissing as untimely 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)

(2006). 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) (2006). 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 Atkinson has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, 

we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 

We further deny Atkinson’s motion to place this appeal in 

abeyance for No. 13-7841, United States v. Foote. We dispense 

Appeal: 13-6669 Doc: 14 Filed: 02/03/2015 Pg: 2 of 3
3

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

Appeal: 13-6669 Doc: 14 Filed: 02/03/2015 Pg: 3 of 3