Court Opinion

ID: 3196954
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2016-04-22 19:00:50.757716+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:30:48.340260
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                              No. 16-6175

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff - Appellee,

          v.

JERRICK LAMONT RORIE, a/k/a Duwop,

                Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence.    Terry L. Wooten, Chief District
Judge. (4:08-cr-00367-TLW-3; 4:15-cv-05113-TLW)

Submitted:   April 19, 2016                 Decided: April 22, 2016

Before AGEE, DIAZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jerrick Lamont Rorie, Appellant Pro Se.      Robert Frank Daley,
Jr., Stanley D. Ragsdale, Assistant United States Attorneys,
Columbia, South Carolina, Arthur Bradley Parham, Assistant
United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       Jerrick Lamont Rorie seeks to appeal the district court’s

order    dismissing        as   successive      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

Rorie 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