Court Opinion

ID: 622704
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2012-02-14 01:01:52+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:14:12.881654
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 11-7002

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                      Plaintiff – Appellee,

          v.

JOSEPH EVELYN WING,

                      Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.    James C. Fox, Senior
District Judge. (5:08-cr-00324-F-1; 5:10-cv-00187-F)

Submitted:   February 9, 2012             Decided:   February 13, 2012

Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Joseph Evelyn Wing, Appellant Pro Se. Joe Exum, Jr., Jennifer P.
May-Parker, Assistant United States Attorneys, Joshua Bryan
Royster, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North
Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Joseph       Evelyn     Wing   seeks      to      appeal      the     district

court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West

Supp.    2011)    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 Wing

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 the

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

                                                           DISMISSED

                                3