United States v. Felton , 403 F. App'x 839 ( 2010 )


Menu:
  •                                UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 10-6708
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    GERALD FELTON,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.    James C. Fox, Senior
    District Judge. (5:93-cr-00123-F-1; 5:08-cv-00050-F)
    Submitted:   October 6, 2010                 Decided:   December 8, 2010
    Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Gerald Felton, Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer P. May-Parker,
    Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
    Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Gerald        Felton    seeks   to    appeal    the   district      court’s
    order denying relief on his 
    28 U.S.C.A. § 2255
     (West Supp. 2010)
    motion.    The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or
    judge     issues     a     certificate      of    appealability.          
    28 U.S.C. § 2253
    (c)(1) (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 Felton 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
    2
    before   the   court   and   argument   would   not   aid   the   decisional
    process.
    DISMISSED
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 10-6708

Citation Numbers: 403 F. App'x 839

Judges: Wilkinson, Niemeyer, Motz

Filed Date: 12/8/2010

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024