Court Opinion

ID: 4275356
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2018-05-15 19:00:21.231121+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:33:52.318148
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                      No. 17-7586

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                    Plaintiff - Appellee,

             v.

MICHAEL SHANE DEBAERE,

                    Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at
Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder, Chief District Judge. (1:13-cr-00329-TDS-1; 1:15-
cv-01023-TDS-JEP)

Submitted: April 30, 2018                                         Decided: May 15, 2018

Before NIEMEYER, THACKER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robert L. Sirianni, Jr., BROWNSTONE, P.A., Winter Park, Florida, for Appellant.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       Michael Shane DeBaere seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the

recommendation of the magistrate judge and 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 DeBaere has not

made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we grant DeBaere’s motion to amend and

supplement, 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