Court Opinion

ID: 4029748
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2016-08-30 19:01:07.325097+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:45:09.228025
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                               No. 16-6299

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff - Appellee,

          v.

HENDRICK A. COUSAR, a/k/a Tony,

                Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Rock Hill.   Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (0:11-cr-02276-JFA-3; 0:14-cv-04410-JFA)

Submitted:   August 25, 2016                 Decided:   August 30, 2016

Before NIEMEYER, DIAZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Hendrick A. Cousar, Appellant Pro Se.   Tommie DeWayne Pearson,
Julius Ness Richardson, Assistant United States Attorneys,
Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

     Hendrick A. Cousar seeks to appeal the district court’s

orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion and

denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion.                            The orders are 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

Cousar has not made the requisite showing.                         Accordingly, we deny

Cousar’s motion for 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   this   court   and   argument   would   not   aid   the   decisional

process.

                                                                    DISMISSED

                                     3