Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-07433/USCOURTS-ca4-15-07433-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
United States of America
Appellee
Calvin Tyrone Young
Appellant

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7433

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

CALVIN TYRONE YOUNG, a/k/a Too Short,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle 

District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. N. Carlton Tilley, 

Jr., Senior District Judge. (4:96-cr-00243-NCT-1; 1:12-cv00368-NCT-JEP)

Submitted: January 14, 2016 Decided: January 20, 2016

Before AGEE, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Calvin Tyrone Young, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Michael Hamilton, 

Michael Francis Joseph, Angela Hewlett Miller, Assistant United

States Attorneys, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-7433 Doc: 12 Filed: 01/20/2016 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Calvin Tyrone Young seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and 

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 

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

a certificate of appealability, deny Young’s motion to appoint 

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

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented 

Appeal: 15-7433 Doc: 12 Filed: 01/20/2016 Pg: 2 of 3
3

in the materials before this court and argument would not aid 

the decisional process.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 15-7433 Doc: 12 Filed: 01/20/2016 Pg: 3 of 3