United States v. Toolasprashad

430 F. App'x 238

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: May 24, 2011
• Docket: 11-6213
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-6213

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

LATCHMIE NARAYAN TOOLASPRASHAD,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Fayetteville. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (3:85-cr-00045-BO-1)

Submitted: May 19, 2011 Decided: May 24, 2011

Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and AGEE and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Latchmie Narayan Toolasprashad, Appellant Pro Se. William Ellis Boyle, Joshua Bryan Royster, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Latchmie Narayan Toolasprashad seeks to appeal the

district court’s order denying relief on his motion seeking his

direct appeal rights which the court properly construed as a 28

U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2010) motion. The order 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 Toolasprashad has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss

the appeal. We grant Toolasprashad’s motion to seal two

2 exhibits to his informal brief. We deny his motions to recuse

and for appointment of counsel. 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.

DISMISSED