Court Opinion

ID: 3208435
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2016-06-01 19:01:03.017085+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:39:26.280000
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 16-6200

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                      Plaintiff – Appellee,

          v.

ADRIAN PARKER, a/k/a Great One, a/k/a Rock,

                      Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte.     Frank D. Whitney,
Chief District Judge. (3:10-cr-00087-FDW-4; 3:16-cv-00035-FDW)

Submitted:   May 26, 2016                      Decided:   June 1, 2016

Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and NIEMEYER and FLOYD, Circuit
Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Adrian Parker, Appellant Pro Se. Steven R. Kaufman, Assistant
United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       Adrian Parker seeks to appeal the district court’s order

dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion as successive.

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

Parker 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