United States v. Devares Vick , 590 F. App'x 260 ( 2015 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-6974
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DEVARES ANTRON VICK, a/k/a Red,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever, III,
Chief District Judge. (5:06-cr-00235-D-1; 5:11-cv-00508-D)
Submitted: January 22, 2015 Decided: January 26, 2015
Before SHEDD, KEENAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Devares Antron Vick, Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer P. May-Parker,
Assistant United States Attorney, Kimberly Ann Moore, OFFICE OF
THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Devares Antron Vick seeks to appeal the district
court’s orders dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2255
(2012) motion and denying reconsideration. The orders are 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 Vick has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we
deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We
deny Vick’s motions to place the case in abeyance and appoint
counsel. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
2
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
before this court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
DISMISSED
3