United States v. Sherrell Brinkley

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-6260
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
SHERRELL GARY BRINKLEY,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen,
Senior District Judge. (3:91-cr-00131-GCM-1; 3:02-cv-00301-GCM)
Submitted: July 30, 2015 Decided: August 12, 2015
Before WILKINSON and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON,
Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Sherrell Gary Brinkley, Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer Marie
Hoefling, OFFICE OF THE 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Federal inmate Sherrell Brinkley appeals the district
court’s orders denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion, his
Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion, as supplemented, and his Fed. R.
Civ. P. 60(b) motion. We deny the motion for a certificate of
appealabilty and dismiss the appeal.
The orders are 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 Brinkley has not made the requisite showing.
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