United States v. Wilford Drummond , 491 F. App'x 443 ( 2012 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 12-7332
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    WILFORD ANTONIO DRUMMOND,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    South Carolina, at Spartanburg.   G. Ross Anderson, Jr., Senior
    District Judge. (7:09-cr-00030-GRA-2; 7:11-cv-03434-GRA)
    Submitted:   December 20, 2012            Decided:   December 26, 2012
    Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
    Circuit Judge.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Wilford Antonio Drummond, Appellant Pro Se.  Leesa Washington,
    Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina,
    for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Wilford Antonio Drummond seeks to appeal the district
    court’s order denying relief on his 
    28 U.S.C.A. § 2255
     (West
    Supp.    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)        (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 Drummond 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: 12-7332

Citation Numbers: 491 F. App'x 443

Filed Date: 12/26/2012

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/30/2014