United States v. Rashadi Wearing

564 F. App'x 37

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-8036

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

RASHADI ANDRE WEARING,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Charlottesville. Norman K. Moon, Senior District Judge. (3:04-cr-00092-NKM-8; 3:13-cv-80561-NKM- RSB)

Submitted: March 27, 2014 Decided: April 1, 2014

Before MOTZ, Circuit Judge, and HAMILTON and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Rashadi Andre Wearing, Appellant Pro Se. Nancy Spodick Healey, Ronald Mitchell Huber, Assistant United States Attorneys, Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:

Rashadi Andre Wearing seeks to appeal the district

court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012)

motion. The order is 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 Wearing 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

2 contentions are adequately presented in the materials before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED