Court Opinion

ID: 3181592
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2016-03-01 20:04:57.050392+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:24:27.662967
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 15-7665

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff - Appellee,

          v.

ANDREI LEE ROYSTER, a/k/a Andre Lee Royster, a/k/a Dre, a/k/a
Muddy Waters,

                Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro.   N. Carlton Tilley,
Jr., Senior District Judge. (1:95-cr-00090-NCT-2)

Submitted:   February 25, 2016            Decided:   March 1, 2016

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

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Andrei Lee Royster, Appellant Pro Se.    Michael Francis Joseph,
Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

     Andrei Lee Royster 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

Royster   has not made the requisite showing.   Accordingly, we deny

a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma

pauperis, and dismiss the appeal.    We dispense with oral argument

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented

                                 2
in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

                                                        DISMISSED

                                3