Court Opinion

ID: 2830439
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-08-25 19:01:05.198936+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:40:16.305151
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                               No. 15-6586

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff - Appellee,

          v.

DOUGLAS LEE PAYNE, JR.,

                Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria.       Leonie M. Brinkema,
District Judge. (1:13-cr-00059-LMB-1; 1:14-cv-00911-LMB)

Submitted:   August 20, 2015                 Decided:   August 25, 2015

Before DUNCAN, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Douglas Lee Payne, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.    Christopher David
Jackson, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, DC;
Karen Ledbetter Taylor, Assistant United States Attorney,
Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       Douglas     Lee     Payne,    Jr.,       seeks    to    appeal        the    district

court’s    order     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

Payne 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