-
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-7533 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. WILLIAM A. WHITE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, Senior District Judge. (7:08-cr-00054-JCT-1; 7:12-cv-80506-JCT-RSB) Submitted: December 18, 2012 Decided: December 28, 2012 Before SHEDD and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. William A. White, Appellant Pro Se. Tovah Renee Calderon, Jessica Dunsay Silver, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: William A. White seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his
28 U.S.C.A. § 2255(West Supp. 2012) motion without prejudice. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability.
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (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 petition 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 White has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 2 presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 3
Document Info
Docket Number: 12-7533
Citation Numbers: 502 F. App'x 308
Judges: Shedd, Duncan, Hamilton
Filed Date: 12/28/2012
Precedential Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 11/6/2024