Court Opinion

ID: 152266
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2010-08-04 18:25:58+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:24:28.057501
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                             No. 09-8105

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff - Appellee,

          v.

WILLIAM CLYDE MURPHY, JR.,

                Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.    James C. Fox, Senior
District Judge. (7:05-cr-00034-F-1; 7:09-cv-00164-F)

Submitted:   July 27, 2010                 Decided:   August 4, 2010

Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and WILKINSON and KEENAN, Circuit
Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

William Clyde Murphy, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Rudolf A. Renfer,
Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina,
for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            William       Clyde     Murphy,     Jr.,    seeks    to    appeal    the

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

(West Supp. 2010) motion.            The order is not appealable unless a

circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability.

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (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 Murphy 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

                                           2
before   the   court   and   argument   would   not   aid   the   decisional

process.

                                                                   DISMISSED

                                    3