Court Opinion

ID: 933608
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-06-26 19:17:59.386765+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:34:36.053775
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                             No. 13-6548

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff - Appellee,

          v.

HORACE CAMPBELL, a/k/a Squeak, a/k/a Horry,

                Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge.
(2:04-cr-01046-DCN-2; 2:09-cv-70048-DCN)

Submitted:   June 20, 2013                 Decided:   June 26, 2013

Before GREGORY, DUNCAN, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Horace Campbell, Appellant Pro Se.        Peter Thomas Phillips,
Nathan   S.   Williams,   Assistant  United    States Attorneys,
Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Horace Campbell seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2013)

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 Campbell has not made the requisite showing.                      Accordingly,

we deny a certificate of appealability, deny Campbell’s motion

to appoint counsel, and dismiss the appeal.                     We dispense with

oral    argument     because    the     facts     and   legal    contentions        are

                                           2
adequately   presented   in   the   materials   before   this   court   and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

                                                                DISMISSED

                                     3