Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-14-07335/USCOURTS-ca4-14-07335-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Wayne Porter
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-7335

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

WAYNE PORTER,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Richard L. Voorhees, 

District Judge. (3:85-cr-00062-RLV-1; 3:14-cv-00373-RLV)

Submitted: March 19, 2015 Decided: March 24, 2015

Before WILKINSON and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Wayne Porter, Appellant Pro Se. Richard Lee Edwards, Assistant 

United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-7335 Doc: 17 Filed: 03/24/2015 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Wayne Porter seeks to appeal the district court’s order 

construing his filing as a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion and 

dismissing it as successive.* 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 

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

a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma 

 * We reject Porter’s claim that his challenge was cognizable 

under former Fed. R. Crim. P. 35(a). See United States v. 

Little, 392 F.3d 671, 678 (4th Cir. 2004).

Appeal: 14-7335 Doc: 17 Filed: 03/24/2015 Pg: 2 of 3
3

pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense 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: 14-7335 Doc: 17 Filed: 03/24/2015 Pg: 3 of 3