Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-16-06187/USCOURTS-ca4-16-06187-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Bobby Ray Hunt
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6187

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

BOBBY RAY HUNT,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. Louise W. Flanagan, 

District Judge. (7:09-cr-00034-FL-1; 7:12-cv-00230-FL)

Submitted: June 16, 2016 Decided: June 29, 2016

Before SHEDD and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit 

Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Bobby Ray Hunt, Appellant Pro Se. Rudy E. Renfer, Assistant 

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

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-6187 Doc: 7 Filed: 06/29/2016 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Bobby Ray Hunt 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 

Hunt has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a 

certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We also 

deny Hunt’s motion for a limited remand based on the district 

court’s indication that it is likely to grant Hunt’s Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 60(b) motion challenging the order denying relief on his 

Appeal: 16-6187 Doc: 7 Filed: 06/29/2016 Pg: 2 of 3
3

§ 2255 motion. As that motion seeks to raise a new habeas 

claim, it is an unauthorized successive § 2255 motion and the 

district court is without jurisdiction to consider it. See

Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 530-32 (2005). 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: 16-6187 Doc: 7 Filed: 06/29/2016 Pg: 3 of 3