United States v. Don Eddlon Knox , 460 F. App'x 199 ( 2011 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-7029
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DON EDDLON KNOX, a/k/a D,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior
District Judge. (3:97-cr-00262-REP-11; 3:11-cv-00440-REP)
Submitted: December 20, 2011 Decided: December 23, 2011
Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Don Eddlon Knox, Appellant Pro Se. James Brien Comey, Jr.,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia; John
Staige Davis, V, WILLIAMS MULLEN, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Don Eddlon Knox seeks to appeal the district court’s
order construing in part his “Motion for Relief Pursuant to 18
U.S.C. § 3582[,] 28 U.S.C. §§ 1651, 2201, 2202 and Appendix,” as
a successive 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 Knox 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
*
To the extent Knox appeals the district court’s denial of
his motions pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006) and 28
U.S.C. §§ 1651, 2201, 2201 (2006), we find no reversible error
and affirm for the reasons stated by the district court.
3