Court Opinion

ID: 4220633
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2017-11-15 20:00:25.967056+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:47:48.531742
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                       No. 17-6732

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                     Plaintiff - Appellee,

              v.

ARTHUR SEAN WARNER,

                     Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at
Clarksburg. Irene M. Keeley, Senior District Judge. (1:14-cr-00081-IMK-JES-1; 1:15-cv-
00164-IMK-JES)

Submitted: October 26, 2017                                 Decided: November 15, 2017

Before AGEE and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Arthur Sean Warner, Appellant Pro Se. Zelda Elizabeth Wesley, Assistant United States
Attorney, Clarksburg, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       Arthur Sean Warner seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the

recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on Warner’s 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 Warner 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

adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

                                                                                DISMISSED

                                             2