DocketNumber： 14-7125
Judges： Wynn, Floyd, Davis
Filed Date： 1/9/2015
Status： Non-Precedential
Modified Date： 10/19/2024
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-7125 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. COREY NICHOLAS DUGGINS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior District Judge. (5:09-cr-00210-F-1; 5:14-cv-00067-F) Submitted: December 23, 2014 Decided: January 9, 2015 Before WYNN and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Corey Nicholas Duggins, Appellant Pro Se. Joe Exum, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Michael Gordon James, Seth Morgan Wood, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Corey Nicholas Duggins 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 Duggins 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 2 contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 3