Court Opinion

ID: 3208424
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2016-06-01 19:00:55.818149+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:39:26.240027
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 16-6158

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff - Appellee,

          v.

KENNETH CADWELL MCCLEES, II,

                Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Elizabeth City.      Louise W.
Flanagan, District Judge.  (2:12-cr-00011-FL-1; 2:14-cv-00029-
FL)

Submitted:   May 26, 2016                  Decided:   June 1, 2016

Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and NIEMEYER and FLOYD, Circuit
Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kenneth Cadwell McClees, II, Appellant Pro Se.    Denise Walker,
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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

       Kenneth Cadwell McClees, II, seeks to appeal the district

court’s    order     accepting     the     recommendation       of    the    magistrate

judge and dismissing as untimely 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

McClees 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