US v. Floyd Powell

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion-certificate of appealability denied. Originating case number: 5:99-cr-00012-RLV-6,5:13-cv-00030-RLV. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999153332]. Mailed to: Floyd Junior Powell. [13-6465]

Appeal: 13-6465

Doc: 10

Filed: 07/18/2013

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-6465

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
FLOYD JUNIOR POWELL, a/k/a Dick,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Statesville.
Richard L.
Voorhees, District Judge.
(5:99-cr-00012-RLV-6; 5:13-cv-00030RLV)
Submitted:

June 20, 2013

Decided:

July 18, 2013

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Floyd Junior Powell, Appellant Pro Se.
William A. Brafford,
Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina; Amy
Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville,
North Carolina; Adam Christopher Morris, Craig Darren Randall,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina,
for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 13-6465

Doc: 10

Filed: 07/18/2013

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Floyd

Junior

Powell

seeks

to

appeal

the

district

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

a

circuit

appealability.

justice

or

The order is not appealable

judge

issues

a

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006).

certificate

of

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

ruling

must
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 Powell 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

2

presented

in

the

materials

Appeal: 13-6465

before

Doc: 10

this

court

Filed: 07/18/2013

and

Pg: 3 of 3

argument

would

not

aid

the

decisional

process.
DISMISSED

3