Court Opinion

ID: 4207275
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2017-09-28 19:01:00.819866+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:47:38.792056
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                      No. 17-6600

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                    Plaintiff - Appellee,

             v.

GILBERT FRANKLIN CAMPBELL, JR.,

                    Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at
Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder, District Judge. (1:08-cr-00338-TDS-1; 1:15-cv-
00957-TDS-JEP)

Submitted: September 26, 2017                               Decided: September 28, 2017

Before NIEMEYER and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit
Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Gilbert Franklin Campbell, Jr., 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

       Gilbert Franklin Campbell, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying

relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion and motion to reconsider the order denying

his § 2255 motion. The orders are 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 Campbell has not

made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Campbell’s motions for a certificate

of appealability and for transcripts at government expense, and we 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