United States v. David Worrell , 458 F. App'x 234 ( 2011 )


Menu:
  •                              UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 11-7244
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    DAVID ISSAC WORRELL, a/k/a David Patrick Worrell,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.    Malcolm J. Howard,
    Senior District Judge. (4:03-cr-00049-H-1)
    Submitted:   December 7, 2011              Decided:   December 15, 2011
    Before SHEDD and    AGEE,   Circuit   Judges,   and   HAMILTON,   Senior
    Circuit Judge.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    David Issac Worrell, Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer P. May-Parker,
    Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
    Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    David   Worrell     seeks      to    appeal       the       district    court’s
    order denying his motion to reopen his 
    28 U.S.C.A. § 2255
     (West
    Supp. 2011) motion proceedings.                      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
    Worrell 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
    2
    contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
    court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
    DISMISSED
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 11-7244

Citation Numbers: 458 F. App'x 234

Judges: Shedd, Agee, Hamilton

Filed Date: 12/15/2011

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024