United States v. Hervey Ransom , 705 F. App'x 208 ( 2017 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 17-6768
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
HERVEY ALLEN RANSOM,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
Wilmington. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (7:14-cr-00108-FL-1; 7:16-cv-00097-
FL)
Submitted: November 28, 2017 Decided: December 11, 2017
Before WILKINSON, KING, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Hervey Allen Ransom, Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer P. May-Parker, Donald Russell
Pender, Rudy E. Renfer, Seth Morgan Wood, Assistant United States Attorneys, OFFICE
OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Hervey Allen Ransom 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 Ransom 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