Court Opinion

ID: 3185652
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2016-03-15 19:05:09.271057+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:14:07.072431
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 15-7408

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff - Appellee,

          v.

MICHAEL ANTHONY CORNWELL,

                Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte.     Robert J. Conrad,
Jr., District Judge. (3:06-cr-00216-RJC-3; 3:12-cv-00300-RJC)

Submitted:   February 29, 2016            Decided:    March 15, 2016

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael Anthony Cornwell, Appellant Pro Se.        Richard Lee
Edwards, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North
Carolina; Kenneth Michel Smith, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       Michael     Anthony      Cornwell     seeks      to    appeal       the     district

court’s    order     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

Cornwell 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