US v. Jonathan Harrison

Filing 920100601

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-7752

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff ­ Appellee, v. JONATHAN DAVID HARRISON, Defendant ­ Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Lacy H. Thornburg, District Judge. (1:06-cr-00031-LHT-DLH-5; 1:08-cv-00034-LHT)

Submitted:

May 13, 2010

Decided:

June 1, 2010

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jonathan David Harrison, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Jonathan David Harrison seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255

(West Supp. 2009) 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. 484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 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. 529 U.S. at 484-85. Slack,

We have independently reviewed the record

and conclude that Harrison has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny

Harrison's motions for oral argument and to appoint counsel, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the

2

facts

and

legal before

contentions the court

are and

adequately argument

presented not

in aid

the the

materials

would

decisional process. DISMISSED

3