Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Darrell Eugene BANKS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-11-21
Citations: 585 F. App'x 238
Docket Number: No. 14-7299
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Darrell Eugene BANKS, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 585
Pages: 238–238

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Darrell Eugene BANKS, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 14-7299.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Nov. 18, 2014.
Decided: Nov. 21, 2014.
Darrell Eugene Banks, Appellant Pro Se. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Affirmed in part, dismissed in part by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Darrell Eugene Banks appeals the district court's August 13, 2014 order denying his ex parte motion. Insofar as Banks challenges the district court's denial of relief under Fed.R.Crim.P. 36, we have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm this portion of the order for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Banks, Nos. 1:09-cr-00052-MR-1 (W.D.N.C. filed Aug. 13, 2014 & entered Aug. 14, 2014).
Insofar as Banks challenges the court's construction of his motion as an unauthorized, successive motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012), this portion of the district court's 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). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Banks has not made the requisite showing. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003) (describing required showing); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000) (same). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss this portion of 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.