Court Opinion

ID: 4090364
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2016-10-18 19:01:15.64497+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:45:26.293270
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                             No. 16-6792

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff - Appellee,

          v.

LONNIE ANTHONY SMITH, a/k/a Timmy,

                Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Wheeling.    Frederick P. Stamp,
Jr., Senior District Judge.  (5:09-cr-00007-FPS-RWT-1; 5:13-cv-
00063-FPS-RWT)

Submitted:   October 13, 2016              Decided:   October 18, 2016

Before NIEMEYER, DUNCAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jeffrey Michael Brandt,      ROBINSON & BRANDT, PSC, Covington,
Kentucky, for Appellant.     Randolph John Bernard, OFFICE OF THE
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY,      Michael D. Stein, Assistant United
States Attorney, Wheeling,   West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

     Lonnie Anthony Smith 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

Smith 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