Court Opinion

ID: 178271
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2010-10-28 18:53:20+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:25:44.448956
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 10-7046

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff - Appellee,

          v.

PRESTON CORNELIUS EVERETT, a/k/a “P”,

                Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria.       Leonie M. Brinkema,
District Judge. (1:05-cr-00019-LMB-1; 1:07-cv-00120-LMB)

Submitted:   October 19, 2010             Decided:   October 28, 2010

Before DUNCAN, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Preston Cornelius Everett, Appellant Pro Se.    Sarah E. Roque,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Preston Cornelius Everett seeks to appeal the district

court’s    order    denying    his    motion      to       reconsider    the     court’s

earlier    order    treating    his    “Motion        to    Dismiss     Count    One   of

Superseding Indictment” as a successive motion under 28 U.S.C.A.

§ 2255 (West Supp. 2010).            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 Everett 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