United States v. Satterfield

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-6172
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
LUTHER EARL SATTERFIELD,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 10-6208
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
LUTHER EARL SATTERFIELD,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever III,
District Judge. (5:04-cr-00173-D-1)
Submitted: August 19, 2010 Decided: August 27, 2010
Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed in part; dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.
Luther Earl Satterfield, Appellant Pro Se. George Edward Bell
Holding, United States Attorney, Rudolf A. Renfer, Jr.,
Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
Luther Earl Satterfield seeks to appeal the district
court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West
Supp. 2010) motion and motion for sentence reduction under 18
U.S.C. § 3582(c) (2006). The portion of the order dismissing
the § 2255 motion 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. at 484-85. We have independently reviewed the record
and conclude that Satterfield has not made the requisite
showing.
We have reviewed the record regarding Satterfield’s
§ 3582(c) motion and affirm the court’s order denying the motion
3
based on the reasoning of the district court. United States v.
Satterfield, No. 5:04-cr-00173-D-1 (E.D.N.C. Jan. 19, 2010).
Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss
the appeal as to the § 2255 motion and affirm the remainder of
the order denying relief on the § 3582(c) motion. 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