United States v. Joyner , 404 F. App'x 731 ( 2010 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-7158
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
COREY LEVON JOYNER,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Elizabeth City. James C. Fox,
Senior District Judge. (2:07-cr-00016-F-1; 2:08-cv-00034-F)
Submitted: November 30, 2010 Decided: December 7, 2010
Before WILKINSON, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed in part; dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.
Corey Levon Joyner, Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer P. May-Parker,
Rudolf A. Renfer, Jr., Assistant United States Attorneys,
Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Corey Levon Joyner seeks to appeal the district
court’s order denying relief on his motions filed pursuant to 28
U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2010), and 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)
(2006). The district court’s denial of Joyner’s § 2255 motion
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 Joyner has not made the requisite showing.
Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss
the portion of the appeal denying § 2255 relief.
2
Turning to the district court’s denial of Joyner’s
§ 3582(c) motion, we have reviewed the record and find no
reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm this portion of the
order for the reasons stated by the district court. United
States v. Joyner, Nos. 2:07-cr-00016-F-1; 2:08-cv-00034-F
(E.D.N.C. Aug. 4, 2010). 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.
AFFIRMED IN PART;
DISMISSED IN PART
3