Court Opinion

ID: 4241925
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2018-02-02 20:00:26.95022+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:48:05.527779
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                      No. 17-7248

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                    Plaintiff - Appellee,

             v.

DORSEY LOUIS BOOKER,

                    Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at
Greensboro. William L. Osteen, Jr., District Judge. (1:12-cr-00421-WO-1; 1:15-cv-
00919-WO-JLW)

Submitted: January 25, 2018                                       Decided: February 2, 2018

Before TRAXLER, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Dorsey Louis Booker, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Francis Joseph, Angela Hewlett Miller,
Assistant United States Attorneys, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY,
Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       Dorsey Louis Booker 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. 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 Booker has not made

the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny the

pending motion, 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