Court Opinion

ID: 220431
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2011-07-06 18:27:52+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:15:45.992449
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                        FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                             No. 11-6391

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff - Appellee,

          v.

LEWIS MOSES BYRD,

                Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte.    Graham C. Mullen,
Senior District Judge. (3:03-cr-00067-GCM-DCK-1; 3:08-cv-00257-
GCM)

Submitted:   June 30, 2011                   Decided:   July 6, 2011

Before WILKINSON, DUNCAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Lewis Moses Byrd, Appellant Pro Se.         Amy Elizabeth Ray,
Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

               Lewis Moses Byrd seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2010)

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    Byrd    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     contentions       are   adequately      presented     in    the

                                             2
materials   before   the   court   and   argument   would   not    aid   the

decisional process.

                                                                  DISMISSED

                                    3