United States v. Satterfield

393 F. App'x 83

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED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

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 Affirmed in part; dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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