Court Opinion

ID: 205830
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2011-03-02 20:35:20+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:26:11.252329
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 10-6684

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff - Appellee,

          v.

CHARLES DEVON SPELL,

                Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.    James C. Fox, Senior
District Judge. (7:04-cr-00133-F-1; 7:10-cv-00033-F)

Submitted:   February 24, 2011            Decided:   March 2, 2011

Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Charles Devon Spell, Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer P. May-Parker,
Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Charles       Devon    Spell       seeks    to    appeal       the   district

court’s    order    dismissing      as    untimely      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) (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    Spell    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

                                           2
before   the   court   and   argument   would   not   aid   the   decisional

process.

                                                                   DISMISSED

                                    3