Court Opinion

ID: 858649
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-04-22 19:13:01.872216+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:43:22.668549
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                              No. 12-8131

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                      Plaintiff – Appellee,

          v.

CRAIG DOCKERY,

                      Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
North Carolina, at Wilmington.     Terrence W. Boyle, District
Judge. (7:01-cr-00046-BO-1; 7:12-cv-00155-BO)

Submitted:   April 18, 2013                 Decided:   April 22, 2013

Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Craig Dockery, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

            Craig        Dockery    seeks   to    appeal    the   district       court’s

order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 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) (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 Dockery 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