United States v. William Meeks , 699 F. App'x 210 ( 2017 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 17-6756
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
WILLIAM LEWIS DONTARS MEEKS, a/k/a Willie, a/k/a Rock,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina,
at Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney, Chief District Judge. (3:12-cr-00188-FDW-19; 3:15-cv-
00208-FDW)
Submitted: October 25, 2017 Decided: November 13, 2017
Before AGEE and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Brian Michael Aus, BRIAN AUS, ATTORNEY AT LAW, Durham, North Carolina, for
Appellant. Jill Westmoreland Rose, United States Attorney, Daniel Steven Ryan, Kevin
Zolot, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina;
Thomas Michael Kent, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Asheville,
North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
William Lewis Dontars Meeks 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 Meeks 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