US v. Brandon River

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 7:08-cv-00061-F,7:04-cr-00085-F-2 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998539713] [10-7261]

US v. Brandon River

Doc. 0

Case: 10-7261

Document: 11

Date Filed: 03/08/2011

Page: 1

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-7261

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. BRANDON RIVERS, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Fox, Senior District Judge. (7:08-cv-00061-F; 7:04-cr-00085-F-2)

Submitted:

February 28, 2011

Decided:

March 8, 2011

Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and KING and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Brandon Rivers, Appellant Pro Se. Edward D. Matheny, Assistant United States Attorneys, Carolina, for Appellee.

Gray, Steve R. Raleigh, North

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Dockets.Justia.com

Case: 10-7261

Document: 11

Date Filed: 03/08/2011

Page: 2

PER CURIAM: Brandon Rivers seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2010) motion. judge The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(1) (2006). issue absent "a

A certificate of appealability will not showing of the denial of a

substantial

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 Rivers 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: 10-7261

Document: 11

Date Filed: 03/08/2011

Page: 3

before

the

court

and

argument

would

not

aid

the

decisional

process. DISMISSED

3