United States v. Sharu Bey , 548 F. App'x 937 ( 2013 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-7208
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
SHARU BEY, a/k/a Jeffrey Lewis,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney,
Chief District Judge. (3:07-cr-00079-FDW-2; 3:11-cv-00566-GCM)
Submitted: December 16, 2013 Decided: December 23, 2013
Before KING, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Sharu Bey, Appellant Pro Se. Steven R. Kaufman, Assistant United
States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina; Amy Elizabeth Ray,
Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Sharu Bey seeks to appeal the district court’s text
order construing his self-styled motion to reduce sentence as a
28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2013) motion and denying it as
successive. 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 Bey has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we
grant Bey’s request to amend his application for a certificate
of appealability, but we deny a certificate of appealability and
dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the
2
facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
materials before this court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
DISMISSED
3