Court Opinion

ID: 2844841
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-03 19:00:49.142439+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:12:34.773458
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                               No. 15-6511

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff - Appellee,

          v.

MORRIS DABBS, a/k/a Ray Dabbs,

                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.     (1:99-cr-00189—NCT-2; 1:11-cv-
00959-NCT-JLW)

Submitted:   August 21, 2015                 Decided:   September 3, 2015

Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Morris Dabbs, Appellant Pro Se.    Randall Stuart Galyon, OFFICE
OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Robert Michael Hamilton, Michael
Francis Joseph, Angela Hewlett Miller, Assistant United States
Attorneys, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

     Morris Dabbs 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

Dabbs has not made the requisite showing.                          Accordingly, we deny

a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma

pauperis,      and    dismiss       the    appeal.           We    dispense          with     oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

                                               2
presented in the materials before this court and argument would

not aid the decisional process.

                                                      DISMISSED

                                  3