Court Opinion

ID: 3182007
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2016-03-02 20:05:27.235042+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:19:49.661409
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                              No. 15-7976

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                      Plaintiff – Appellee,

          v.

CARLOS ALEXANDER SANDERS,

                      Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge.       (5:12-cr-00158-FL-1;
5:13-cv-00873-FL)

Submitted:   February 25, 2016                Decided:   March 2, 2016

Before SHEDD and    HARRIS,    Circuit   Judges,   and   DAVIS,   Senior
Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Carlos Alexander Sanders, Appellant Pro Se. Barbara Dickerson
Kocher, Assistant United States Attorney, Seth Morgan Wood,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina,
for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       Carlos    Alexander       Sanders        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

Sanders has not made the requisite showing.                              Accordingly, we

deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.                                We

dispense     with        oral   argument     because         the    facts       and    legal

                                            2
contentions   are   adequately   presented   in   the   materials   before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

                                                               DISMISSED

                                   3