United States v. Claude Sloan , 491 F. App'x 421 ( 2012 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 12-7735
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    CLAUDE SLOAN,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
    District of Virginia, at Big Stone Gap.        James P. Jones,
    District Judge. (2:00-cr-10101-JPJ-1; 2:12-cv-80524-JPJ-RSB)
    Submitted:   December 11, 2012            Decided:   December 21, 2012
    Before NIEMEYER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
    Circuit Judge.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Claude Sloan, Appellant Pro Se.           Steven Randall Ramseyer,
    Assistant United States Attorney,         Abingdon, Virginia, for
    Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Claude        Sloan   seeks    to    appeal    the    district       court’s
    order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 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) (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) (2006).                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 Sloan has not made the requisite showing.                         Accordingly, we
    deny leave to proceed in formal pauperis, deny a certificate of
    appealability, and dismiss the appeal.                    We dispense with oral
    2
    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
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 12-7735

Citation Numbers: 491 F. App'x 421

Filed Date: 12/21/2012

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/31/2014