United States v. Carl Linyard

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-7757
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
CARL L. LINYARD, a/k/a Gus, a/k/a Big Kahuna, a/k/a Kahuna,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Beaufort. Solomon Blatt, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (9:03-cr-00620-SB-1; 9:13-cv-02658-SB)
Submitted: March 17, 2015 Decided: March 20, 2015
Before WILKINSON and KING, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.
Carl L. Linyard, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Nicholas Bianchi,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, South
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Carl L. Linyard seeks to appeal the district court’s order
granting relief on his motion for reduction of his sentence,
under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012), and denying, as successive,
his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. Linyard does not allege
error regarding his § 3582 relief. Thus we affirm this part of
the appeal for the reasons stated by the district court. United
States v. Linyard, Nos. 9:03-cr-00620-SB-1; 9:13-cv-02658-SB
(D.S.C. Nov. 17, 2014).
Regarding Linyard’s § 2255 motion, he cannot appeal 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.
2
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that
Linyard 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.
AFFIRMED IN PART;
DISMISSED IN PART
3