United States v. Roy Bell ( 2015 )


Menu:
  •                              UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 15-7477
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    ROY RICARDO BELL,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Newport News. Arenda L. Wright Allen,
    District Judge. (4:11-cr-00055-AWA-DEM-15; 4:12-cv-00188-AWA)
    Submitted:   December 17, 2015             Decided:   December 22, 2015
    Before DIAZ and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
    Circuit Judge.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Roy Ricardo Bell, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Edward Bradenham, II,
    Assistant United States Attorney, Newport News, Virginia; Dee
    Mullarkey Sterling, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk,
    Virginia, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Roy Ricardo Bell 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
    Bell 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: 15-7477

Filed Date: 12/22/2015

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 12/22/2015