United States v. David Lewis , 691 F. App'x 723 ( 2017 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-7133
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DAVID LEWIS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior
District Judge. (5:11-cr-00229-F-8; 5:14-cv-00374-F)
Submitted: December 16, 2016 Decided: June 8, 2017
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and MOTZ and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
David Lewis, Appellant Pro Se. Shailika S. Kotiya, OFFICE OF
THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
David Lewis 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
Lewis has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny
a certificate of appealability, deny Lewis’ motion to appoint
counsel, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument
because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented
2
in the materials before this court and argument would not aid
the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3