Court Opinion

ID: 205944
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2011-03-03 19:37:26+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:43:35.917510
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 10-7725

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff - Appellee,

          v.

KEVIN MAURICE LINDER,

                Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Statesville.      Richard L.
Voorhees, District Judge. (5:10-cv-00169-RLV)

Submitted:   February 24, 2011            Decided:   March 3, 2011

Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kevin Maurice Linder, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Kevin        Maurice    Linder       seeks   to       appeal    the    district

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

Supp. 2010) motion, and denying his motion for reconsideration.

These orders       are     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 Linder 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