US v. Corey Joyner
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-7158 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. COREY LEVON JOYNER, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Elizabeth City. James C. Fox, Senior District Judge. (2:07-cr-00016-F-1; 2:08-cv-00034-F) Submitted: November 30, 2010 Decided: December 7, 2010
Before WILKINSON, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed in part; dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion. Corey Levon Joyner, Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer P. May-Parker, Rudolf A. Renfer, Jr., Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM: Corey Levon Joyner seeks to appeal the district
court's order denying relief on his motions filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. (2006). § 2255 (West Supp. 2010), and 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)
The district court's denial of Joyner's § 2255 motion
is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. certificate of appealability 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). will not issue absent A "a
substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). relief on the merits, that a When the district court denies satisfies would this standard that claims 473, by the is 484
demonstrating district debatable
reasonable of v.
constitutional 529 U.S.
(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. at 484-85. that We have independently has not made reviewed the
Slack, 529 U.S. the record and
Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the portion of the appeal denying § 2255 relief.
Turning § 3582(c) motion,
Joyner's find no
Accordingly, we affirm this portion of the United
order for the reasons stated by the district court. States v. Joyner, Nos. 2:07-cr-00016-F-1;
(E.D.N.C. Aug. 4, 2010).
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. AFFIRMED IN PART; DISMISSED IN PART
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?