Court Opinion

ID: 814185
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2012-12-21 19:44:30+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:33:28.838241
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 12-7735

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff - Appellee,

          v.

CLAUDE SLOAN,

                Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Big Stone Gap.        James P. Jones,
District Judge. (2:00-cr-10101-JPJ-1; 2:12-cv-80524-JPJ-RSB)

Submitted:   December 11, 2012            Decided:   December 21, 2012

Before NIEMEYER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Claude Sloan, Appellant Pro Se.           Steven Randall Ramseyer,
Assistant United States Attorney,         Abingdon, Virginia, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Claude        Sloan   seeks    to    appeal    the    district       court’s

order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2012)

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 Sloan has not made the requisite showing.                         Accordingly, we

deny leave to proceed in formal pauperis, deny a certificate of

appealability, and dismiss the appeal.                    We dispense with oral

                                           2
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

                                  3