Court Opinion

ID: 820933
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-02-20 19:46:44.954272+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:03:09.708623
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                             No. 12-8050

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff – Appellee,

          v.

THEODORE HOWZE, JR., a/k/a Sld Dft 3:98-299-1,

                Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte.     Graham C. Mullen,
Senior District Judge. (3:98-cr-00299-GCM-1; 3:12-cv-00538-GCM)

Submitted:   February 11, 2013             Decided:   February 20, 2013

Before KING and    SHEDD,   Circuit   Judges,   and   HAMILTON,   Senior
Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Theodore Howze, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.       Amy Elizabeth Ray,
Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

             Theodore        Howze,    Jr.,       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 Howze 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