Court Opinion

ID: 3164846
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-12-22 20:00:51.736468+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:17:12.344056
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                        FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                             No. 15-7477

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff - Appellee,

          v.

ROY RICARDO BELL,

                Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Newport News. Arenda L. Wright Allen,
District Judge. (4:11-cr-00055-AWA-DEM-15; 4:12-cv-00188-AWA)

Submitted:   December 17, 2015             Decided:   December 22, 2015

Before DIAZ and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Roy Ricardo Bell, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Edward Bradenham, II,
Assistant United States Attorney, Newport News, Virginia; Dee
Mullarkey Sterling, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk,
Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

     Roy Ricardo Bell 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

Bell 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   materials   before   this    court   and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

                                                                   DISMISSED

                                      2