Court Opinion

ID: 815840
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-01-25 02:34:51+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:09:49.557280
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                        FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                             No. 12-7489

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff - Appellee,

          v.

GIDEON X. MELVIN,

                Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Fox, Senior
District Judge. (7:00-cr-00110-F-1; 7:12-cv-00149-F)

Submitted:   January 22, 2013              Decided: January 24, 2013

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Gideon X. Melvin, Appellant Pro Se.    Jennifer P. May-Parker,
Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Gideon X. Melvin 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 Melvin has not made the requisite showing.                           See United

States v. Powell, 649 F.3d 554 (4th Cir. 2012) (holding that

Carachuri-Rosendo v. Holder, 130 S. Ct. 2577 (2010), and United

States v. Simmons, 649 F.3d 237, 241-45 (4th Cir. 2011), do not

apply      retroactively        to      cases         on    collateral         review).

                                           2
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

                                     3