Court Opinion

ID: 798554
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2012-04-24 18:51:45+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:59:45.821843
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                              No. 11-7252

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff - Appellee,

          v.

PHILIP BERNARD FRIEND,

                Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond.     Robert E. Payne, Senior
District Judge. (3:99-cr-00201-REP-4; 3:11-cv-00305-REP)

Submitted:   April 19, 2012                 Decided:   April 24, 2012

Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Philip Bernard Friend, Appellant Pro Se. Brian R. Hood, OFFICE
OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Philip    Bernard    Friend      seeks   to    appeal   the    district

court’s order dismissing as successive his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255

(West Supp. 2011) 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)         (2006).             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)

(2006).    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 Friend 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 the court and argument would

not aid the decisional process.

                                                     DISMISSED

                                  3