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UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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UNPUBLISHED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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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
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?