Court Opinion

ID: 2771381
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-01-20 20:46:08.64454+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:47:22.940361
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                             No. 13-7175

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                       Plaintiff – Appellee,

          v.

DENNIS LAMAR BRUTON,

                       Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Martin K. Reidinger,
District Judge. (1:09-cr-00013-MR-3; 1:12-cv-00123-MR)

Submitted:   January 15, 2015              Decided:   January 20, 2015

Before WILKINSON and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Dennis Lamar Bruton, Appellant Pro Se. William Michael Miller,
Assistant United States Attorney, Thomas A. O’Malley, OFFICE OF
THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Anne Magee Tompkins, United States
Attorney,   Charlotte,  North   Carolina;  Amy   Elizabeth  Ray,
Assistant United States Attorney, Jill Westmoreland Rose, OFFICE
OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Asheville, North Carolina, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Dennis        Lamar   Bruton       seeks   to    appeal       the    district

court’s order dismissing as untimely 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 Bruton has not made the requisite showing.                         Accordingly, we

deny a certificate of appealability, deny Bruton’s motion to

appoint counsel, and dismiss the appeal.                     We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

                                           2
presented in the materials before this court and argument would

not aid the decisional process.

                                                      DISMISSED

                                  3