United States v. Eric Morrison , 691 F. App'x 117 ( 2017 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-6141
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ERIC WILFORD MORRISON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at
Statesville. Richard L. Voorhees, District Judge. (5:07-cr-00050-RLV-DSC-2; 5:12-cv-
00147-RLV)
Submitted: May 23, 2017 Decided: June 2, 2017
Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Eric Wilford Morrison, Appellant Pro Se. Erin Elizabeth Comerford, Thomas A.
O’Malley, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina,
Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Eric Wilford Morrison seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on
his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) 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) (2012). 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) (2012). 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 Morrison 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 contentions
are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
DISMISSED
2