US v. Dale Elli

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case numbers: 5:09-cr-00017-RLV-DCK-1,5:11-cv-00022-RLV. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998787747]. Mailed to: Dale Ellis. [11-7343]

Appeal: 11-7343

Document: 9

Date Filed: 02/14/2012

Page: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-7343

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DALE EUGENE ELLIS,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Statesville.
Richard L.
Voorhees, District Judge.
(5:09-cr-00017-RLV-DCK-1; 5:11-cv00022-RLV)

Submitted:

February 9, 2012

Decided:

February 14, 2012

Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Dale Eugene Ellis, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 11-7343

Document: 9

Date Filed: 02/14/2012

Page: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Dale Eugene Ellis seeks to appeal the district court’s
order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2011)
motion.
judge

The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or
issues

a

certificate

§ 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006).
issue

absent

“a

of

28

U.S.C.

A certificate of appealability will not

substantial

constitutional right.”

appealability.

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

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.
and

conclude

that

Slack,

We have independently reviewed the record
Ellis

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

Appeal: 11-7343

before

Document: 9

Date Filed: 02/14/2012

the

and

court

argument

would

Page: 3 of 3

not

aid

the

decisional

process.
DISMISSED

3