US v. Zachary W. Sander

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 5:06-cr-00253-D-1,5:12-cv-00503-D. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999525632]. Mailed to: Zachary Sanders, Adam Hulbig. [13-7672]

Appeal: 13-7672

Doc: 9

Filed: 02/09/2015

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-7672

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ZACHARY WILLIAM SANDERS,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
James C. Dever III,
Chief District Judge. (5:06-cr-00253-D-1; 5:12-cv-00503-D)

Submitted:

January 29, 2015

Decided:

February 9, 2015

Before WILKINSON, KING, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed in part; affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.

Zachary William Sanders, Appellant Pro Se.
Jane J. Jackson,
Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant United States Attorneys,
Felice McConnell Corpening, Adam Frederick Hulbig, OFFICE OF THE
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 13-7672

Doc: 9

Filed: 02/09/2015

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Zachary William Sanders seeks to appeal the district
court’s order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012)
motion and denying his motion for reduction of sentence under 18
U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012).

We dismiss in part, and affirm in

part.
The
motion
issues

is

district

not

a

appealable

certificate

§ 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012).
issue

court’s

absent

“a

dismissal

unless
of

circuit

Sanders’
justice

appealability.

or

28

§ 2255
judge
U.S.C.

A certificate of appealability will not

substantial

constitutional right.”

a

of

showing

of

the

denial

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012).

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 Sanders has not made the requisite showing.
2

Accordingly,

Appeal: 13-7672

Doc: 9

Filed: 02/09/2015

Pg: 3 of 3

we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss this portion
of the appeal.
As

to

the

district

court’s

denial

of

Sanders’

§ 3582(c)(2) motion, we have reviewed the record and find no
reversible error.

Accordingly, we affirm this portion of the

district court’s order for the reasons stated by the district
court.

See United States v. Sanders, Nos. 5:06-cr-00253-D-1,

5:12-cv-00503-D (E.D.N.C. Sept. 13, 2013).
oral

argument

adequately

because

presented

in

the
the

facts

and

materials

We dispense with

legal

contentions

before

this

court

are
and

argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED IN PART;
AFFIRMED IN PART

3