United States v. David McGaha , 547 F. App'x 352 ( 2013 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-6886
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DAVID ISAAC MCGAHA,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Dever III,
Chief District Judge. (7:09-cr-00131-D-1; 7:12-cv-00068-D)
Submitted: November 15, 2013 Decided: December 6, 2013
Before KEENAN, DIAZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Katherine Elaine Shea, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER,
Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. Thomas Gray Walker,
United States Attorney, Kristine L. Fritz, Jennifer P.
May-Parker, Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
David Isaac McGaha seeks to appeal the district
court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (West Supp.
2013) 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) (2006). 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 McGaha has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we
deny a certificate of appealability, deny McGaha’s motion to
extend the time for filing a reply brief, and dismiss the
appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
2
before this Court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
DISMISSED
3