Court Opinion

ID: 2763534
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2014-12-22 20:00:50.063153+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:44:35.858111
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 14-7136

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff - Appellee,

          v.

NORVEL LEE WOODSON,

                Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Beckley.        Irene C. Berger,
District Judge. (5:09-cr-00191-1; 5:12-cv-02529; 5:14-cv-16725)

Submitted:   December 18, 2014            Decided:   December 22, 2014

Before SHEDD, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Norvel Lee Woodson, Appellant Pro Se. Gary L. Call, John J.
Frail, Assistant United States Attorneys, Charleston, West
Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Norvel        Lee   Woodson     seeks      to    appeal       the      district

court’s    order     accepting     the     recommendation         of    the     magistrate

judge and 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 Woodson 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