United States v. Dion Drew , 456 F. App'x 310 ( 2011 )


Menu:
  •                               UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 11-6847
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    DION RENE DREW,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
    District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. John Preston Bailey,
    Chief District Judge.   (3:05-cr-00070-JPB-DJJ-1; 3:09-cv-00059-
    JPB-DJJ)
    Submitted:   November 30, 2011              Decided:   December 6, 2011
    Before KING, DUNCAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Dion Rene Drew, Appellant Pro Se.       Paul Thomas Camilletti,
    Assistant United States Attorney, Martinsburg, West Virginia;
    Alan McGonigal, Assistant United States Attorney, Wheeling, West
    Virginia, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Dion Rene Drew seeks to appeal the district court’s
    order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and
    denying    relief        on    his    28   U.S.C.A.         §    2255    (West   Supp.    2011)
    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       Drew    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: 11-6847

Citation Numbers: 456 F. App'x 310

Judges: King, Duncan, Wynn

Filed Date: 12/6/2011

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024