Court Opinion

ID: 4211695
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2017-10-13 19:00:54.068145+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:47:41.621464
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                       No. 17-6582

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                     Plaintiff - Appellee,

              v.

MAURICE CROMRATIE,

                     Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
Wilmington. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (7:12-cr-00098-FL-1; 7:15-cv-00195-
FL)

Submitted: September 19, 2017                                 Decided: October 13, 2017

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and KING and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Maurice Cromatie, Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer P. May-Parker, Seth Morgan Wood,
Assistant United States Attorneys, Charity L. Wilson, OFFICE OF THE UNITED
STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       Maurice Cromratie 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. See 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 Cromratie has not

made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny his motions for 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