Court Opinion

ID: 218519
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2011-06-09 19:19:12+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:28:36.478120
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 11-6244

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff - Appellee,

          v.

COVEN EARL GABRIEL-VICK,

                Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.      Terrence W. Boyle,
District Judge. (5:09-cr-00157-BO-1; 5:10-cv-00570-BO)

Submitted:   June 2, 2011                  Decided:   June 9, 2011

Before MOTZ, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Coven Earl Gabriel-Vick, Appellant Pro Se.   Michael Gordon
James, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North
Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Coven Earl Gabriel-Vick seeks to appeal the district

court’s order denying relief on 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     Gabriel-Vick       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

                                          2
materials   before   the   court   and   argument   would   not    aid   the

decisional process.

                                                                  DISMISSED

                                    3