Court Opinion

ID: 814503
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2012-12-28 20:18:09+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:00:52.171956
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                        FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                             No. 12-7533

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff – Appellee,

          v.

WILLIAM A. WHITE,

                Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke.       James C. Turk, Senior
District Judge. (7:08-cr-00054-JCT-1; 7:12-cv-80506-JCT-RSB)

Submitted:   December 18, 2012             Decided:   December 28, 2012

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

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

William A. White, Appellant Pro Se. Tovah Renee Calderon,
Jessica Dunsay Silver, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
Washington, D.C., for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            William A. White seeks to appeal the district court’s

order dismissing his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2012) motion

without prejudice.         The order is not appealable unless a circuit

justice    or    judge   issues   a   certificate       of   appealability.      28

U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (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 petition 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 White has not made the requisite showing.                     Accordingly, we

deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in

forma pauperis, 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