Court Opinion

ID: 2754164
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2014-11-21 20:00:58.107747+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:25:06.069193
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 14-7219

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff - Appellee,

          v.

CHRISTOPHER WILLIAM ODEN,

                Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. John Preston Bailey,
Chief District Judge.   (3:11-cr-00056-JPB-JES-1; 3:13-cv-00093-
JPB-JES)

Submitted:   November 18, 2014            Decided:   November 21, 2014

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Christopher William Oden, Appellant Pro Se. Shawn Angus Morgan,
Assistant United States Attorney, Clarksburg, West Virginia;
Erin   K.   Reisenweber,   Assistant  United   States   Attorney,
Martinsburg, West Virginia; Stephen Donald Warner, Assistant
United States Attorney, Elkins, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Christopher William Oden 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 Oden 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