Court Opinion

ID: 2671458
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2014-04-29 00:01:06.976891+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:19:34.865058
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                        FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                              No. 13-7950

MICHAEL BELSER,

                  Petitioner - Appellant,

          v.

ERIC WILSON, Warden,

                  Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk.    Rebecca Beach Smith, Chief
District Judge. (2:13-cv-00492-RBS-LRL)

Submitted:   April 24, 2014                 Decided:   April 28, 2014

Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael Belser, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

               Michael Belser seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012) petition,

construing the action as a 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 Belser has not made the requisite showing.                        Accordingly, we

deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, deny a certificate of

appealability, 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