US v. Elbert Mayfield

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 5:09-cr-00041-RLV-DCK-1,5:12-cv-00095-RLV Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999345698]. Mailed to: Elbert Mayfield. [14-6020]

Appeal: 14-6020

Doc: 5

Filed: 04/29/2014

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-6020

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ELBERT MAURICE MAYFIELD,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Statesville.
Richard L.
Voorhees, District Judge.
(5:09-cr-00041-RLV-DCK-1; 5:12-cv00095-RLV)

Submitted:

April 24, 2014

Decided:

April 29, 2014

Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Elbert Maurice Mayfield, Appellant Pro Se.
Melissa Louise
Rikard, Assistant United States Attorney, Maria Kathleen Vento,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina,
for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-6020

Doc: 5

Filed: 04/29/2014

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Elbert Maurice Mayfield seeks to appeal the district
court’s

order

motion.

The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or

judge

issues

denying

a

certificate

§ 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012).
issue

absent

relief

“a

on

of

28

U.S.C.

§ 2255

appealability.

28

(2012)

U.S.C.

A certificate of appealability will not

substantial

constitutional right.”

his

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 Mayfield has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly,

we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.
We

dispense

with

oral

argument

2

because

the

facts

and

legal

Appeal: 14-6020

Doc: 5

contentions

Filed: 04/29/2014

are

adequately

Pg: 3 of 3

presented

in

the

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED

3