Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-16-07229/USCOURTS-ca4-16-07229-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Darryl Booker
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-7229

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

DARRYL BOOKER,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Max O. Cogburn, Jr., 

District Judge. (3:11-cr-00258-MOC-DSC-2; 3:14-cv-00341-MOC)

Submitted: January 17, 2017 Decided: January 19, 2017

Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Darryl Booker, Appellant Pro Se. William Michael Miller, Assistant 

United States Attorney, Ann Claire H. Phillips, OFFICE OF THE 

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina; Amy Elizabeth 

Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, 

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-7229 Doc: 7 Filed: 01/19/2017 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Darryl Booker seeks to appeal the district court’s order 

denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b), (d) motion for relief from the

order dismissing 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 

Booker 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

Appeal: 16-7229 Doc: 7 Filed: 01/19/2017 Pg: 2 of 3
3

adequately presented in the materials before this court and 

argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 16-7229 Doc: 7 Filed: 01/19/2017 Pg: 3 of 3