US v. Douglas T. Person

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion certificate of appealability (Local Rule 22(a)) [999036168-2], denying Motion certificate of appealability (Local Rule 22(a)) [999026858-2] Originating case number: 5:03-cr-00170-BO-1,5:10-cv-00076-BO. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999096565]. Mailed to: Dpug;as Person. [12-8140]

Appeal: 12-8140

Doc: 11

Filed: 04/29/2013

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-8140

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DOUGLAS THOMAS PERSON,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
Terrence W. Boyle,
District Judge. (5:03-cr-00170-BO-1; 5:10-cv-00076-BO)

Submitted:

April 25, 2013

Before AGEE and
Circuit Judge.

WYNN,

Circuit

Decided: April 29, 2013

Judges,

and

HAMILTON,

Senior

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Douglas Thomas Person, Appellant Pro Se.
Joe Exum, Jr.,
Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant United States Attorneys,
Joshua Bryan Royster, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY,
Raleigh, North Carolina; Steve R. Matheny, Assistant United
States Attorney, Washington, DC, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 12-8140

Doc: 11

Filed: 04/29/2013

Pg: 2 of 3

Thomas

seeks

PER CURIAM:
Douglas

Person

to

appeal

the

district

court’s order denying relief on 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).

When the district court denies relief on the merits, a

prisoner

satisfies

this

reasonable

jurists

would

assessment

of

constitutional

wrong.

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2)

the

standard
find

by

that

demonstrating

the

claims

district
is

that

court’s

debatable

or

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller-

El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003).

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 Person has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we

deny Person’s motions for a certificate of appealability and
dismiss the appeal.
facts

and

legal

We dispense with oral argument because the

contentions

are

2

adequately

presented

in

the

Appeal: 12-8140

Doc: 11

materials

before

Filed: 04/29/2013

this

court

Pg: 3 of 3

and

argument

would

not

aid

the

decisional process.

DISMISSED

3