Court Opinion

ID: 2737879
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2014-09-29 19:01:18.813363+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:03:50.937544
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 14-6658

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff - Appellee,

          v.

CRAIG MAURICE HARRIS,

                Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.    James C. Dever, III,
Chief District Judge. (5:12-cr-00120-D-1; 5:13-cv-00117-D)

Submitted:   September 25, 2014          Decided:   September 29, 2014

Before WILKINSON and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Craig Maurice Harris, Appellant Pro Se.      Rudy E. Renfer,
Assistant United States Attorney, Shailika K. Shah, OFFICE OF
THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Craig        Maurice    Harris       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 Harris has not made the requisite showing.                            Accordingly, we

deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in

forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal.                       We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

                                             2
presented in the materials before this court and argument would

not aid the decisional process.

                                                      DISMISSED

                                  3