Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-06700/USCOURTS-ca4-15-06700-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Reggie Andre Beckton
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6700

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

REGGIE ANDRE BECKTON,

 Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. W. Earl Britt, 

Senior District Judge. (7:11-cr-00061-BR-1; 7:15-cv-00068-BR)

Submitted: September 9, 2015 Decided: September 14, 2015

Before SHEDD, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Reggie Andre Beckton, Appellant Pro Se. G. Norman Acker, III, 

Dennis Michael Duffy, Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant United 

States Attorneys, S. Katherine Burnette, Tobin Webb Lathan, Seth 

Morgan Wood, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, 

North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-6700 Doc: 10 Filed: 09/14/2015 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Reggie Andre Beckton 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 

Beckton has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we 

deny Beckton’s motions for a certificate of appealability and 

dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the 

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 

Appeal: 15-6700 Doc: 10 Filed: 09/14/2015 Pg: 2 of 3
3

materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 15-6700 Doc: 10 Filed: 09/14/2015 Pg: 3 of 3