Court Opinion

ID: 2745491
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2014-10-24 19:01:28.878587+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:12:52.622076
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 14-6929

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff - Appellee,

          v.

SHAWN SADLER, a/k/a Tangulifu M. Barber, a/k/a Carlos Watts,

                Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia.     Cameron McGowan Currie, Senior
District Judge. (3:04-cr-00330-CMC-5; 3:14-cv-02126-CMC)

Submitted:   October 21, 2014             Decided:   October 24, 2014

Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Shawn Sadler, Appellant Pro Se.    William Kenneth Witherspoon,
Assistant United States Attorney, Nancy Chastain Wicker, OFFICE
OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Shawn      Sadler     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 Sadler 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