United States v. Lorenzo Nicholson , 459 F. App'x 240 ( 2011 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 11-6898
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    LORENZO RANTELLE NICHOLSON, a/k/a Zo,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    South Carolina, at Greenville.    Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior
    District Judge. (6:08-cr-00117-HMH-4; 6:11-cv-70089-HMH)
    Submitted:   December 20, 2011            Decided:   December 22, 2011
    Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Lorenzo Rantelle Nicholson, Appellant Pro Se. Elizabeth Jean
    Howard, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South
    Carolina, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Lorenzo        Rantelle     Nicholson      seeks        to     appeal      the
    district court’s order 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
    Nicholson 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: 11-6898

Citation Numbers: 459 F. App'x 240

Filed Date: 12/22/2011

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 12/22/2014