United States v. Bryan Noel , 692 F. App'x 128 ( 2017 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 17-6296
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
BRYAN KEITH NOEL,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina,
at Asheville. Richard L. Voorhees, District Judge. (1:09-cr-00057-RLV-1; 1:16-cv-
00406-RLV)
Submitted: June 20, 2017 Decided: June 23, 2017
Before SHEDD, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Bryan Keith Noel, Appellant Pro Se. Melissa Louise Rikard, Edward R. Ryan, Assistant
United States Attorneys, Benjamin Bain-Creed, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Bryan Keith Noel seeks to appeal the district court’s orders dismissing as untimely
his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion and denying his motion for reconsideration. The
orders are 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 Noel 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