Court Opinion

ID: 2676898
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2014-06-03 19:00:42.508953+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:31:55.188776
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                             No. 14-6308

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                 Plaintiff - Appellee,

          v.

DAVID LEE COX,

                 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-00037-BO-1; 5:13-cv-00654-BO)

Submitted:   May 29, 2014                   Decided:   June 3, 2014

Before SHEDD, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

David Lee Cox, Appellant Pro Se.       Jennifer P. May-Parker,
Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

               David Lee Cox seeks to appeal the district court’s

order 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 Cox has not made the requisite showing.                               Accordingly, we

deny Cox’s motion for a transcript at government expense, 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