Court Opinion

ID: 822770
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-02-28 20:07:13.641717+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:11:56.841213
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 12-7606

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff - Appellee,

          v.

DONALD LAMONT POSTELL,

                Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte.     Frank D. Whitney,
District Judge. (3:88-cr-00136-FDW-1; 3:12-cv-00576-FDW)

Submitted:   February 26, 2013            Decided:   February 28, 2013

Before MOTZ, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Donald Lamont Postell, Appellant Pro Se.     Amy Elizabeth Ray,
Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

              Donald Lamont Postell, a federal prisoner, seeks to

appeal the district court’s order dismissing his petition for

writ of error coram nobis as an unauthorized successive motion

under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2012).                           The order is not

appealable      unless        a    circuit         justice     or     judge       issues     a

certificate of appealability.                28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006).

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) (2006).                     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 Postell 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

                                               2
contentions   are   adequately   presented   in   the   materials   before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

                                                               DISMISSED

                                   3