Court Opinion

ID: 3180442
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2016-02-25 20:05:03.962401+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:08:33.898635
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                No. 15-7534

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                 Plaintiff – Appellee,

          v.

KEITH ORBIE JAMES,

                 Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro.   N. Carlton Tilley,
Jr.,    Senior    District   Judge.        (1:09-cr-00190-NCT-3;
1:12-cv-00818-NCT-JLW)

Submitted:   February 19, 2016                Decided:    February 25, 2016

Before GREGORY    and   AGEE,    Circuit   Judges,       and   DAVIS,   Senior
Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Keith Orbie James, Appellant Pro Se. Angela Hewlett Miller,
Anand P. Ramaswamy, Assistant United States Attorneys, Kyle
David Pousson, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro,
North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

      Keith    Orbie      James    seeks     to    appeal    the    district         court’s

order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and

denying relief on 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

James 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