United States v. Tony Vines, Jr. ( 2015 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-6313
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
TONY VINES, JR.,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan,
District Judge. (5:10-cr-00048-FL-1; 5:11-cv-00484-FL)
Submitted: January 13, 2015 Decided: March 2, 2015
Before NIEMEYER, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed in part; dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.
Tony Vines, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Kristine L. Fritz, Eric
David Goulian, Joshua Bryan Royster, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY, Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant United States
Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Tony Vines, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s
order adopting in part the recommendation of the magistrate
judge and granting in part and denying in part his 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255 (2012) motion and has moved for appointment of counsel
and to amend and supplement his informal appellate brief. The
district court granted Vines relief on his claim seeking
resentencing under the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010, denied
relief on his remaining claims, and granted a certificate of
appealability on the issue of whether the purpose of Vines’ plea
agreement was frustrated by this court’s decision in United
States v. Simmons, 649 F.3d 237 (4th Cir. 2011) (en banc). We
have reviewed the record and find that the district court
correctly ruled that Simmons did not frustrate the purpose of
Vines’ plea agreement. Accordingly, we grant Vines’ motions to
amend and supplement his informal appellate brief and affirm the
district court’s order, in part. United States v. Vines, Nos.
5:10-cr-00048-FL-1; 5:11-cv-00484-FL (E.D.N.C. Feb. 5, 2013).
The remainder of the district court’s order denying
§ 2255 relief * is not appealable unless a circuit justice or
*
We do not consider the portion of the district court’s
order granting § 2255 relief in part because Vines confines his
appeal to portions of the district court’s order denying § 2255
relief.
2
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). 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 Vines has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we
deny a certificate of appealability, deny Vines’ motions to
appoint counsel, and dismiss the appeal, in part. 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.
AFFIRMED IN PART;
DISMISSED IN PART
3