Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-13-07672/USCOURTS-ca4-13-07672-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Zachary William Sanders
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-7672

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

ZACHARY WILLIAM SANDERS,

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. (5:06-cr-00253-D-1; 5:12-cv-00503-D)

Submitted: January 29, 2015 Decided: February 9, 2015

Before WILKINSON, KING, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed in part; affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam 

opinion.

Zachary William Sanders, Appellant Pro Se. Jane J. Jackson, 

Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant United States Attorneys, 

Felice McConnell Corpening, Adam Frederick Hulbig, OFFICE OF THE 

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 13-7672 Doc: 9 Filed: 02/09/2015 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Zachary William Sanders seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012)

motion and denying his motion for reduction of sentence under 18 

U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012). We dismiss in part, and affirm in 

part.

The district court’s dismissal of Sanders’ § 2255 

motion 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 Sanders has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, 

Appeal: 13-7672 Doc: 9 Filed: 02/09/2015 Pg: 2 of 3
3

we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss this portion 

of the appeal. 

As to the district court’s denial of Sanders’ 

§ 3582(c)(2) motion, we have reviewed the record and find no 

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm this portion of the 

district court’s order for the reasons stated by the district 

court. See United States v. Sanders, Nos. 5:06-cr-00253-D-1, 

5:12-cv-00503-D (E.D.N.C. Sept. 13, 2013). 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 IN PART;

AFFIRMED IN PART

Appeal: 13-7672 Doc: 9 Filed: 02/09/2015 Pg: 3 of 3