US v. Carl Graham

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to appoint/assign counsel [998948027-2]. Originating case number: 1:06-cr-00267-JAB-1,1:09-cv-00958-JAB-PTS. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998991328]. Mailed to: Carl Graham. [11-7287]

Appeal: 11-7287

Doc: 12

Filed: 11/29/2012

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-7287

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
CARL KOTAY GRAHAM,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. James A. Beaty, Jr.,
Chief District Judge.
(1:06-cr-00267-JAB-1; 1:09-cv-00958-JABPTS)

Submitted:

November 16, 2012

Decided:

November 29, 2012

Before NIEMEYER, AGEE, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Carl Kotay Graham, Appellant Pro Se.
Lisa Blue Boggs, Angela
Hewlett Miller, Assistant United States Attorneys, Greensboro,
North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 11-7287

Doc: 12

Filed: 11/29/2012

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Carl Kotay Graham seeks to appeal the district court’s
order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and
denying

relief

motion.

The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or

judge

issues

on

a

his

absent

U.S.C.A.

certificate

§ 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006).
issue

28

“a

of

2255

(West

Supp.

appealability.

28

2012)

U.S.C.

A certificate of appealability will not

substantial

constitutional right.”

§

showing

of

the

denial

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006).

of

a

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 (2000);

Cockrell,

(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.

Slack,

529 U.S. at 484-85.
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude
that Graham has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we

deny Graham’s motion to appoint counsel, deny a certificate of
appealability, and dismiss the appeal.

We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
2

Appeal: 11-7287

Doc: 12

Filed: 11/29/2012

Pg: 3 of 3

presented in the materials before this court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED

3