United States v. Felder , 404 F. App'x 731 ( 2010 )


Menu:
  •                              UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 10-7215
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    BILLY RAY FELDER,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.     Terrence W. Boyle,
    District Judge. (5:08-cr-00295-BO-2; 5:09-cv-00385-BO; 5:10-cv-
    00095-BO)
    Submitted:   November 30, 2010             Decided:   December 7, 2010
    Before WILKINSON, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Billy Ray Felder, Appellant Pro Se. Edward D. Gray, Jennifer P.
    May-Parker, Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North
    Carolina, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Billy Ray Felder seeks to appeal the district court’s
    order denying relief on his 
    28 U.S.C.A. § 2255
     (West Supp. 2010)
    motion.    The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or
    judge     issues     a    certificate      of      appealability.          
    28 U.S.C. § 2253
    (c)(1) (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 Felder has not made the requisite showing.
    Accordingly,       we     deny    Felder’s       motion   for    a     certificate     of
    appealability and dismiss the appeal.                     We dispense with oral
    argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
    2
    presented in the materials before the court and argument would
    not aid the decisional process.
    DISMISSED
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 10-7215

Citation Numbers: 404 F. App'x 731

Judges: Wilkinson, Keenan, Wynn

Filed Date: 12/7/2010

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024