Court Opinion

ID: 4248322
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2018-02-26 20:00:26.995201+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:48:09.880711
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                      No. 17-6976

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                    Plaintiff - Appellee,

             v.

FREDRICK LAMAR SMITH, a/k/a Red Fred,

                    Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
Spartanburg. Bruce H. Hendricks, District Judge. (7:03-cr-01094-BHH-2; 7:16-cv-02563-
BHH)

Submitted: February 22, 2018                                 Decided: February 26, 2018

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

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Fredrick Lamar Smith, Appellant Pro Se. Elizabeth Jeanne Howard, Assistant United
States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville, South
Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       Fredrick Lamar Smith seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on 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 Smith 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 before this court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

                                                                                 DISMISSED

                                              2