United States v. Kenneth Monroe ( 2019 )


Menu:
  •                                      UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 19-7485
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    KENNETH WAYNE MONROE,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
    Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior District Judge. (5:07-cr-00093-BR-1; 5:16-cv-00343-BR)
    Submitted: December 17, 2019                                Decided: December 20, 2019
    Before KING, FLOYD, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Kenneth Wayne Monroe, Appellant Pro Se.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Kenneth Wayne Monroe 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 Monroe 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: 19-7485

Filed Date: 12/20/2019

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 12/20/2019