Court Opinion

ID: 183676
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2011-01-26 19:55:10+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:26:04.282595
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 10-6438

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff - Appellee,

          v.

ROLAND JEVON HOPKINS, a/k/a Meatball,

                Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro.   William L. Osteen,
Jr., District Judge. (1:06-cr-00439-WO-1; 1:08-cv-00187-WO-WWD)

Submitted:   January 18, 2011             Decided:   January 26, 2011

Before NIEMEYER, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Roland Jevon Hopkins, Appellant Pro Se. Angela Hewlett Miller,
Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina,
for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

               Roland    Jevon   Hopkins         seeks   to     appeal       the   district

court’s    order    accepting      the      recommendation           of   the    magistrate

judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.

2010) motion.           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 Hopkins 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