United States v. Terry Bennett

454 F. App'x 143

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: November 18, 2011
• Docket: 11-6689
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-6689

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

TERRY JACKSON BENNETT,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad, Jr., Chief District Judge. (3:04-cr-00315-RJC-1; 3:08-cv- 00410-RJC)

Submitted: November 7, 2011 Decided: November 18, 2011

Before WILKINSON and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Terry Jackson Bennett, Appellant Pro Se. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Terry Jackson Bennett seeks to appeal the district

court’s orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West

Supp. 2011) motion and his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion for

reconsideration. The orders are not appealable unless a circuit

justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28

U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (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 Bennett has not made the requisite showing.

See United States v. McNamara, 74 F.3d 514, 516-17 (4th Cir.

1996). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and

dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the

2 materials before the court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

DISMISSED