Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-13-07285/USCOURTS-ca4-13-07285-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Terrell Mack Edwards
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-7285

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

TERRELL MACK EDWARDS,

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. (5:05-cr-00129-D-1; 5:11-cv-00774-D)

Submitted: January 22, 2015 Decided: January 26, 2015

Before SHEDD, KEENAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Terrell Mack Edwards, Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer P. May-Parker, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 13-7285 Doc: 20 Filed: 01/26/2015 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Terrell Mack Edwards seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order 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) (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 and dismiss the appeal. 

We deny Edwards’ motions to appoint counsel and to remand the 

case and the Government’s motion to place the case in abeyance. 

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

Appeal: 13-7285 Doc: 20 Filed: 01/26/2015 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: 13-7285 Doc: 20 Filed: 01/26/2015 Pg: 3 of 3