United States v. Roger Camp , 691 F. App'x 730 ( 2017 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-7735
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ROGER VAN SANTVOORD CAMP,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (5:11-cr-00155-BO-1; 5:15-cv-00524-BO)
Submitted: May 25, 2017 Decided: June 8, 2017
Before KING, SHEDD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Roger Van Santvoord Camp, Appellant Pro Se. G. Norman Acker, III, Seth Morgan
Wood, Assistant United States Attorneys, Banumathi Rangarajan, OFFICE OF THE
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Roger Van Santvoord Camp 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. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B)
(2012); Buck v. Davis, 137 S. Ct. 759, 773 (2017). 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 Camp has not made
the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny his motions for 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