Court Opinion

ID: 4218464
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2017-11-08 05:00:30.881708+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:47:46.064466
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                      No. 17-6575

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

             Plaintiff - Appellee,

             v.

DAVID ANTHONY MCKINNEY,

             Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at
Greensboro. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., Senior District Judge. (2:93-cr-00267-NCT-1;
1:13-cv-00745-NCT-JLW)

Submitted: October 27, 2017                                  Decided: November 7, 2017

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

David Anthony McKinney, Appellant Pro Se. Angela Hewlett Miller, Assistant United
States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       David Anthony McKinney 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 McKinney has not

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

dismiss the appeal. We deny the motion for appointment of counsel and 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