Court Opinion

ID: 215560
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2011-04-27 18:53:59+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:06:42.362228
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                              No. 11-6110

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff – Appellee,

          v.

ANTHONY ALLEN LEMAY,

                Defendant – Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Martin K. Reidinger,
District Judge. (1:02-cr-00105-MR-6; 1:06-cv-00336-MR)

Submitted:   April 21, 2011                 Decided:   April 27, 2011

Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Anthony Allen Lemay, Appellant Pro Se.   Amy Elizabeth Ray,
Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, Virginia, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Anthony       Allen    Lemay       seeks     to   appeal        the   district

court’s    order        denying    relief        on    his     28     U.S.C.A.      § 2255

(West Supp. 2010) motion.            The order is not appealable unless a

circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability.

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (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    Lemay    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

                                           2
before   the   court   and   argument   would   not   aid   the   decisional

process.

                                                                   DISMISSED

                                    3