US v. Collier Sessom

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 7:06-cr-00063-BR-1,7:10-cv-00094-BR Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998451008] [10-6989]

US v. Collier Sessom

Doc. 0

Case: 10-6989 Document: 14

Date Filed: 10/22/2010

Page: 1

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-6989 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff ­ Appellee, v. COLLIER DOUGLAS SESSOMS, Defendant ­ Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. W. Earl Britt, Senior District Judge. (7:06-cr-00063-BR-1; 7:10-cv-00094-BR) Submitted: October 14, 2010 Decided: October 22, 2010

Before MOTZ, KING, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Collier Douglas Sessoms, Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer P. MayParker, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Dockets.Justia.com

Case: 10-6989 Document: 14

Date Filed: 10/22/2010

Page: 2

PER CURIAM: Collier Douglas Sessoms seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 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). 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 Sessoms 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 contentions are adequately presented in the materials

2

Case: 10-6989 Document: 14

Date Filed: 10/22/2010

Page: 3

before

the

court

and

argument

would

not

aid

the

decisional

process. DISMISSED

3