Lindsey v. United States

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA CHARLOTTE DIVISION CIVIL CASE NO. 3:99-cv-00133-GCM (CRIMINAL CASE NO. 3:94-cr-00139-1-MU)

REGINALD W. LINDSEY, ) ) Petitioner, ) ) vs. ) ORDER ) ) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) Respondent. ) ___________________________________ )

THIS MATTER is before the Court on remand from the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit for the limited purpose of permitting this Court to supplement the record with an order granting or denying a certificate of appealability. [Doc. 13]. Having again reviewed the record in this matter, the Court finds that Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of a denial of a constitutional right. See generally 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); see also Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003) (in order to satisfy § 2253(c), a “petitioner must demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong”) (citing Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484-85 (2000)). Petitioner has failed to demonstrate both that this Court’s dispositive procedural rulings are debatable, and that the Motion to Vacate states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. at 484-85. As a result, the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. See Rule 11(a), Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings for the United States District Courts, 28 U.S.C. § 2255. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Pursuant to Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 and Section 2255 Cases, this Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. The Clerk is respectfully instructed to return this matter to the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. IT ISSO ORDERED. Signed: May 15, 2024 y ] y Yy Graham C. Mullen xe United States District Judge mt