Court Opinion

ID: 2643718
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-11-22 19:31:43.856159+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:04:57.342289
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 13-6959

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff – Appellee,

          v.

CHRISTOPHER SMITH,

                Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.     Louise W. Flanagan,
District Judge. (5:09-cr-00176-FL-1; 5:11-cv-00476-FL)

Submitted:   November 15, 2013            Decided:   November 22, 2013

Before DAVIS, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Christopher Smith, Appellant Pro Se.         Rebecca W. Holt,
Shailika K. Shah, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh,
North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Christopher Smith seeks to appeal the district court’s

order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and

denying    relief        on    his   28   U.S.C.A.        §    2255    (West    Supp.    2013)

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 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

                                               2
contentions   are   adequately   presented   in   the   materials   before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

                                                               DISMISSED

                                   3