Court Opinion

ID: 800713
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2012-05-22 19:16:06+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:59:57.080780
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                              No. 11-7571

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff – Appellee,

          v.

ANTONIO MAURICE CRAIG, a/k/a Cup,

                Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte.    Graham C. Mullen,
Senior District Judge.  (3:06-cr-00088-FDW-CH-1; 3:11-cv-00221-
GCM)

Submitted:   April 24, 2012                 Decided:   May 22, 2012

Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Antonio Maurice Craig, Appellant Pro Se. Keith Michael Cave,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina,
for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Antonio        Maurice    Craig      seeks    to    appeal       the   district

court’s orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West

Supp. 2011) motion and denying his motion for reconsideration.

The orders are 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 Craig 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 the

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

                                                           DISMISSED

                                3