United States v. Silas King , 624 F. App'x 137 ( 2015 )


Menu:
  •                              UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 15-7505
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    SILAS THOMAS KING,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
    District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Martin K. Reidinger,
    District Judge. (3:01-cr-00210-MR-3; 3:13-CV-00286-MR)
    Submitted:   December 15, 2015             Decided:    December 18, 2015
    Before GREGORY    and   FLOYD,   Circuit   Judges,    and   DAVIS,   Senior
    Circuit Judge.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Silas Thomas King, Appellant Pro Se.        Amy Elizabeth Ray,
    Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for
    Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Silas      Thomas       King   seeks       to    appeal       the       district    court’s
    order     denying       his     Fed.       R.        Civ.    P.      60(b)        motion     for
    reconsideration of 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
    King 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
    2
    contentions   are   adequately   presented   in   the   materials   before
    this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
    DISMISSED
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 15-7505

Citation Numbers: 624 F. App'x 137

Judges: Gregory, Floyd, Davis

Filed Date: 12/18/2015

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/6/2024