Court Opinion

ID: 4501406
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2020-01-24 20:00:28.26743+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:54:18.948442
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                       No. 19-7210

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                     Plaintiff - Appellee,

              v.

BRYAN KEITH NOEL,

                     Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at
Asheville. Robert J. Conrad, Jr., District Judge. (1:09-cr-00057-RJC-1; 1:16-cv-00406-
RJC)

Submitted: January 21, 2020                                       Decided: January 24, 2020

Before WILKINSON, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Bryan Keith Noel, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       Bryan Keith Noel seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion to

conduct discovery and his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for reconsideration of the district

court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2018) 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) (2018). 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) (2018). 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 Noel 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 before this court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

                                                                                 DISMISSED

                                              2