United States v. Linyard

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-6794
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
CARL L. LINYARD,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 10-6796
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
CARL L. LINYARD,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the District
of South Carolina, at Beaufort. Sol Blatt, Jr., Senior District
Judge. (9:03-cr-00620-SB-1; 9:08-cv-70045-SB)
Submitted: September 30, 2010 Decided: October 8, 2010
Before NIEMEYER, AGEE, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed in part; dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.
Carl L. Linyard, Appellant Pro Se. Peter Thomas Phillips,
Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
Carl L. Linyard appeals the district court’s order
denying his motion for reduction of sentence pursuant to 18
U.S.C. § 3582(c) (2006). We have reviewed the record and find
no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons
stated by the district court. United States v. Linyard, Nos.
9:03-cr-00620-SB-1 & 9:08-cv-70045-SB (D.S.C. May 12, 2010 & May
13, 2010).
The order from which Linyard appeals also denied his
28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2010) motion. The order is not
appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a
certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). 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) (2006). 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.
3
at 484-85. 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 the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED IN PART;
DISMISSED IN PART
4