United States v. Ernest Rogers, Jr. ( 2011 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-7693
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
ERNEST LEE ROGERS, JR.,
Defendant – Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Spartanburg. Margaret B. Seymour, District
Judge. (7:02-cr-00325-MBS-2; 7:04-cv-00254-MBS)
Submitted: July 28, 2011 Decided: August 1, 2011
Before SHEDD, AGEE, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Ernest Lee Rogers, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Alan Lance Crick,
Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Ernest Lee Rogers, Jr., seeks to appeal the district
court’s order denying motions he filed on September 28, 2010, in
his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2011) proceedings seeking to
dismiss the indictment, or inspect the list of grand juror names
and to dismiss for selective prosecution or, in the alternative,
convene a federal grand jury and disclose grand jury
transcripts. 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 Rogers has not made the requisite showing.
Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss
2
the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts
and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
DISMISSED
3