United States v. Daryl Carter

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-6393
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DARYL BERNARD CARTER,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrance W. Boyle,
District Judge. (5:09-cr-00130-BO-1; 5:12-cv-00718-BO)
Submitted: July 24, 2014 Decided: July 28, 2014
Before FLOYD and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Daryl Bernard Carter, Appellant Pro Se. Rudy E. Renfer,
Assistant United States Attorney, Shailika K. Shah, OFFICE OF
THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Daryl Bernard Carter seeks to appeal the district
court’s orders denying as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012)
motion, and denying his subsequent motion to alter or amend
judgment. 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 Carter has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we
deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We
further deny Carter’s motion for appointment of counsel and
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