Court Opinion

ID: 4175791
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2017-06-08 19:03:51.435832+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:47:11.694310
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                       No. 16-7735

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                     Plaintiff - Appellee,

              v.

ROGER VAN SANTVOORD CAMP,

                     Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (5:11-cr-00155-BO-1; 5:15-cv-00524-BO)

Submitted: May 25, 2017                                            Decided: June 8, 2017

Before KING, SHEDD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Roger Van Santvoord Camp, Appellant Pro Se. G. Norman Acker, III, Seth Morgan
Wood, Assistant United States Attorneys, Banumathi Rangarajan, OFFICE OF THE
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       Roger Van Santvoord Camp 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); Buck v. Davis, 137 S. Ct. 759, 773 (2017). 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 Camp 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