United States v. Antoine Lott , 694 F. App'x 165 ( 2017 )


Menu:
  •                                     UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 17-6481
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    ANTOINE J. LOTT,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
    Charleston. Patrick Michael Duffy, Senior District Judge. (2:10-cr-01095-PMD-1; 2:16-
    cv-01196-PMD)
    Submitted: July 27, 2017                                          Decided: August 1, 2017
    Before AGEE and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Antoine J. Lott, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Nicholas Bianchi, OFFICE OF THE UNITED
    STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Antoine J. Lott seeks to appeal the district court’s order 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 Lott 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 before this court and argument would not aid the
    decisional process.
    DISMISSED
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 17-6481

Citation Numbers: 694 F. App'x 165

Judges: Agee, Floyí, Hamilton

Filed Date: 8/1/2017

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/19/2024