US v. Charles Burn

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:09-cr-00234-FDW-2,3:12-cv-00388-FDW Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999121633]. Mailed to: Charles Burns. [13-6080]

Appeal: 13-6080

Doc: 5

Filed: 06/04/2013

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-6080

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
CHARLES R. BURNS,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte.
Frank D. Whitney,
District Judge. (3:09-cr-00234-FDW-2; 3:12-cv-00388-FDW)

Submitted:

May 30, 2013

Decided:

June 4, 2013

Before SHEDD, DIAZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.

Charles R. Burns, Appellant Pro Se.
William A. Brafford,
Assistant United States Attorney, Robert John Gleason, OFFICE OF
THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 13-6080

Doc: 5

Filed: 06/04/2013

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Charles R. Burns seeks to appeal the district court’s
order

granting

in

part

and

denying

in

part

his

motions

for

reduction of sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006), and
denying

relief

motion.

We have reviewed the district court’s partial denial of

Burns’

§

on

his

3582(c)(2)

28

U.S.C.A.

motion

and

§

2255

find

no

(West

Supp.

reversible

2012)

error.

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order in part for
the reasons stated by the district court.
Burns,

Nos.

3:09-cr-00234-FDW-2;

United States v.

3:12-cv-00388-FDW

(W.D.N.C.

Jan. 2, 2013).
The district court’s order denying relief on Burns’
§ 2255

motion

is

not

judge

issues

a

certificate

§ 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006).
issue

absent

“a

appealable
of

a

circuit

justice

appealability.

28

or

U.S.C.

A certificate of appealability will not

substantial

constitutional right.”

unless

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); 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
2

Appeal: 13-6080

Doc: 5

Filed: 06/04/2013

Pg: 3 of 3

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 Burns has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we

deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal in
part.
legal
before

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
contentions
this

court

are

adequately

and

argument

presented

would

not

in
aid

the
the

materials
decisional

process.

AFFIRMED IN PART;
DISMISSED IN PART

3