US v. Vincent Sinclair
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 7:07-cr-00015-BO-1. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999076753]. Mailed to: Vicent Sinclair. [12-7952]
Appeal: 12-7952
Doc: 9
Filed: 04/01/2013
Pg: 1 of 3
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-7952
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
VINCENT SINCLAIR,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Wilmington.
Terrence W. Boyle,
District Judge. (7:07-cr-00015-BO-1)
Submitted:
March 28, 2013
Decided:
April 1, 2013
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Vincent Sinclair, Appellant Pro Se.
Michael Gordon James,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Appeal: 12-7952
Doc: 9
Filed: 04/01/2013
Pg: 2 of 3
PER CURIAM:
Vincent Sinclair seeks to appeal the district court’s
order construing his motion to compel as a motion pursuant to 28
U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2012), and denying it as successive.
The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge
issues
a
certificate
§ 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006).
issue
absent
“a
of
appealability.
U.S.C.
A certificate of appealability will not
substantial
constitutional right.”
28
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.
Slack,
529 U.S. at 484-85.
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude
that Sinclair has not made the requisite showing.
Accordingly,
we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.
We
dispense
with
oral
argument
2
because
the
facts
and
legal
Appeal: 12-7952
Doc: 9
contentions
Filed: 04/01/2013
are
adequately
Pg: 3 of 3
presented
in
the
materials
before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?