Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-06508/USCOURTS-ca4-15-06508-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Terrence Peters
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6508

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

TERRENCE PETERS, a/k/a The Dred, a/k/a Dred,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior

District Judge. (3:08-cr-00186-REP-RCY-1; 3:12-cv-00129-REPRCY)

Submitted: August 27, 2015 Decided: August 31, 2015

Before GREGORY, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Terrence Peters, Appellant Pro Se. Peter Sinclair Duffey, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-6508 Doc: 8 Filed: 08/31/2015 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Terrence Peters 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 

Peters has not made the requisite showing. On appeal, we 

confine our review to the issues raised in the Appellant’s 

brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Peters’ informal brief 

does not challenge the basis for the district court’s 

disposition, Peters has forfeited appellate review of the 

Appeal: 15-6508 Doc: 8 Filed: 08/31/2015 Pg: 2 of 3
3

court’s order. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of 

appealability 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: 15-6508 Doc: 8 Filed: 08/31/2015 Pg: 3 of 3