United States v. Dellonte Seburn , 678 F. App'x 121 ( 2017 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-6985
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DELLONTE RASHAUN SEBURN,
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. (5:13-cr-00005-D-1; 5:15-cv-00204-D)
Submitted: February 23, 2017 Decided: February 27, 2017
Before SHEDD and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Dellonte Rashaun Seburn, Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer P. May-Parker,
Roberto Francisco Ramirez, Assistant United States Attorneys,
Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Dellonte Rashaun Seburn 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
Seburn has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny
a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.
Additionally, we deny Seburn’s motion for appointment of counsel
and to remand or suspend the certificate of appealability review.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
2
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3