Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-14-07757/USCOURTS-ca4-14-07757-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Carl L. Linyard
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-7757

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

CARL L. LINYARD, a/k/a Gus, a/k/a Big Kahuna, a/k/a Kahuna,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Beaufort. Solomon Blatt, Jr., Senior 

District Judge. (9:03-cr-00620-SB-1; 9:13-cv-02658-SB)

Submitted: March 17, 2015 Decided: March 20, 2015

Before WILKINSON and KING, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam 

opinion.

Carl L. Linyard, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Nicholas Bianchi, 

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, South 

Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-7757 Doc: 11 Filed: 03/20/2015 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Carl L. Linyard seeks to appeal the district court’s order 

granting relief on his motion for reduction of his sentence, 

under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012), and denying, as successive,

his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. Linyard does not allege

error regarding his § 3582 relief. Thus we affirm this part of 

the appeal for the reasons stated by the district court. United 

States v. Linyard, Nos. 9:03-cr-00620-SB-1; 9:13-cv-02658-SB 

(D.S.C. Nov. 17, 2014). 

Regarding Linyard’s § 2255 motion, he cannot appeal 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. 

Appeal: 14-7757 Doc: 11 Filed: 03/20/2015 Pg: 2 of 3
3

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that 

Linyard has not made the requisite showing. 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.

AFFIRMED IN PART;

DISMISSED IN PART

Appeal: 14-7757 Doc: 11 Filed: 03/20/2015 Pg: 3 of 3