Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-13-07203/USCOURTS-ca4-13-07203-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Robert Wesley Clayton
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-7203

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

ROBERT WESLEY CLAYTON,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Martin K. Reidinger, 

District Judge. (1:07-cr-00101-MR-2; 1:12-cv-00109-MR)

Submitted: January 22, 2015 Decided: January 26, 2015

Before SHEDD, KEENAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robert Wesley Clayton, Appellant Pro Se. Amy Elizabeth Ray, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 13-7203 Doc: 16 Filed: 01/26/2015 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Robert Wesley Clayton 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 Clayton has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, 

we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, deny Clayton’s

motion to appoint counsel, 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 

Appeal: 13-7203 Doc: 16 Filed: 01/26/2015 Pg: 2 of 3
3

materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 13-7203 Doc: 16 Filed: 01/26/2015 Pg: 3 of 3