Court Opinion

ID: 4174206
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2017-06-05 07:03:38.677611+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:43:47.599596
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                       No. 16-6141

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                     Plaintiff - Appellee,

              v.

ERIC WILFORD MORRISON,

                     Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at
Statesville. Richard L. Voorhees, District Judge. (5:07-cr-00050-RLV-DSC-2; 5:12-cv-
00147-RLV)

Submitted: May 23, 2017                                            Decided: June 2, 2017

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Eric Wilford Morrison, Appellant Pro Se. Erin Elizabeth Comerford, Thomas A.
O’Malley, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina,
Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       Eric Wilford Morrison 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 Morrison 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 materials before this court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

                                                                                 DISMISSED

                                              2