US v. Kenneth Crawford

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 5:07-cr-00058-sgw-mfu-3,5:09-cv-80162-sgw-mfu Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998523120] [10-6991]

Case: 10-6991

Document: 14

Date Filed: 02/11/2011

Page: 1

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-6991

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
KENNETH ODELL CRAWFORD,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Harrisonburg.
Samuel G. Wilson,
District Judge. (5:07-cr-00058-sgw-mfu-3; 5:09-cv-80162-sgw-mfu)

Submitted:

January 4, 2011

Decided:

February 11, 2011

Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Seth Allen Neyhart, STARK LAW GROUP, PLLC, Chapel Hill, North
Carolina, for Appellant. Jeb Thomas Terrien, Assistant United
States Attorney, Harrisonburg, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Case: 10-6991

Document: 14

Date Filed: 02/11/2011

Page: 2

PER CURIAM:
Kenneth Odell Crawford 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) (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

Cockrell,

(2000);

(2003).

see

Miller-El

v.

537

U.S.

322,

336-38

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 Crawford 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: 10-6991

before

the

court

Document: 14

and

Date Filed: 02/11/2011

argument

would

not

aid

Page: 3

the

decisional

process.
DISMISSED

3