US v. Horace Campbell

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to appoint/assign counsel [999084723-2]. Originating case numbers: 2:04-cr-01046-DCN-2, 2:09-cv-70048-DCN. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999138215]. Mailed to: Horace Campbell. [13-6548]

Appeal: 13-6548

Doc: 8

Filed: 06/26/2013

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-6548

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
HORACE CAMPBELL, a/k/a Squeak, a/k/a Horry,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge.
(2:04-cr-01046-DCN-2; 2:09-cv-70048-DCN)

Submitted:

June 20, 2013

Decided:

June 26, 2013

Before GREGORY, DUNCAN, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Horace Campbell, Appellant Pro Se.
Peter Thomas Phillips,
Nathan
S.
Williams,
Assistant
United
States
Attorneys,
Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 13-6548

Doc: 8

Filed: 06/26/2013

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Horace Campbell seeks to appeal the district court’s
order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2013)
motion.
judge

The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or
issues

a

certificate

§ 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006).
issue

absent

“a

of

28

U.S.C.

A certificate of appealability will not

substantial

constitutional right.”

appealability.

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 Campbell has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly,

we deny a certificate of appealability, deny Campbell’s motion
to appoint counsel, and dismiss the appeal.
oral

argument

because

the

facts

2

and

legal

We dispense with
contentions

are

Appeal: 13-6548

Doc: 8

adequately

Filed: 06/26/2013

presented

in

the

Pg: 3 of 3

materials

before

this

court

and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

3