US v. Steven Carr

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying for certificate of appealability Originating case number: 5:98-cr-00246-RLV-2,5:12-cv-00083-RLV Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998959966]. Mailed to: Steven Carr. [12-7321]

Appeal: 12-7321

Doc: 10

Filed: 10/16/2012

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-7321

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
STEVEN DONEWAN CARR, a/k/a Steve D. Carr,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Statesville.
Richard L.
Voorhees, District Judge.
(5:98-cr-00246-RLV-2; 5:12-cv-00083RLV)

Submitted:

October 11, 2012

Decided:

October 16, 2012

Before KING, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Steven Donewan Carr, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 12-7321

Doc: 10

Filed: 10/16/2012

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Steven

Donewan

Carr

seeks

to

appeal

the

district

court’s order dismissing as successive his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255
(West Supp. 2012) 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.

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

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude
that Carr has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we

deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.
dispense

with

oral

argument

because

the

facts

and

We

legal

Appeal: 12-7321

Doc: 10

Filed: 10/16/2012

Pg: 3 of 3

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

3