Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-16-06200/USCOURTS-ca4-16-06200-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Adrian Parker
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6200

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

ADRIAN PARKER, a/k/a Great One, a/k/a Rock,

 Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney, 

Chief District Judge. (3:10-cr-00087-FDW-4; 3:16-cv-00035-FDW)

Submitted: May 26, 2016 Decided: June 1, 2016

Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and NIEMEYER and FLOYD, Circuit 

Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Adrian Parker, Appellant Pro Se. Steven R. Kaufman, Assistant 

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

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-6200 Doc: 11 Filed: 06/01/2016 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Adrian Parker seeks to appeal the district court’s order 

dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion as successive. 

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 

Parker 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

Appeal: 16-6200 Doc: 11 Filed: 06/01/2016 Pg: 2 of 3
3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 16-6200 Doc: 11 Filed: 06/01/2016 Pg: 3 of 3