Court Opinion

ID: 3181991
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2016-03-02 20:05:15.438855+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:31:35.002931
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                No. 15-7895

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff - Appellee,

          v.

WILLIAM IRA HARRIS,

                Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.     Louise W. Flanagan,
District Judge. (5:13-cr-00067-FL-1; 5:14-cv-00409-FL)

Submitted:   February 25, 2016                 Decided:    March 2, 2016

Before SHEDD and      HARRIS,    Circuit   Judges,   and   DAVIS,   Senior
Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

William Ira Harris, Appellant Pro Se. Ethan A. Ontjes, Stephen
Aubrey West, Assistant United States Attorneys, Kimberly Ann
Moore, Seth Morgan Wood, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY,
Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

      William Ira Harris seeks to appeal the district court’s

order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and

denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (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) (2012).

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) (2012).                   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

Harris 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

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

                                                               DISMISSED

                                   3