US v. Reginald Field

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case numbers: 1:09-cr-00013-MR-5,1:11-cv-00010-MR. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998615948] Mailed to: Reginald Lamond Fields. [11-6413]

Appeal: 11-6413

Document: 5

Date Filed: 06/21/2011

Page: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-6413

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
REGINALD LAMOND FIELDS,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Martin K. Reidinger,
District Judge. (1:09-cr-00013-MR-5; 1:11-cv-00010-MR)

Submitted:

June 16, 2011

Before NIEMEYER and
Senior Circuit Judge.

GREGORY,

Decided:

Circuit

Judges,

June 21, 2011

and

HAMILTON,

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Reginald Lamond Fields, Appellant Pro Se.
Amy Elizabeth Ray,
Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 11-6413

Document: 5

Date Filed: 06/21/2011

Page: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Reginald Lamond Fields 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)(B)

(2006).

A

certificate

of

appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of
the denial of a constitutional right.”
(2006).

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2)

When the district court denies relief on the merits, a

prisoner

satisfies

this

jurists

would

reasonable

standard
find

by

that

demonstrating

the

district

that

court’s

assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong.
Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v.
Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003).
denies

relief

demonstrate

on

both

procedural

that

the

When the district court

grounds,

dispositive

the

prisoner

procedural

must

ruling

is

debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the
denial of a constitutional right.
We

have

independently

reviewed

the

Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85.
record

Fields has not made the requisite showing.
a

certificate

dispense

with

of

appealability

oral

argument

and

conclude

that

Accordingly, we deny

dismiss

because

2

and

the

the

appeal.

facts

and

We
legal

Appeal: 11-6413

Document: 5

Date Filed: 06/21/2011

Page: 3 of 3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED

3