US v. Darrell Bank

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--granting Motion to file addendum/attachment [999304738-2], updating certificate of appealability status Originating case number: 1:09-cr-00052-MR-1,1:12-cv-00166-MR Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999391688]. Mailed to: Darrell Banks. [14-6122]

Appeal: 14-6122

Doc: 9

Filed: 07/09/2014

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-6122

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
DARRELL EUGENE BANKS,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Martin K. Reidinger,
District Judge. (1:09-cr-00052-MR-1; 1:12-cv-00166-MR)

Submitted:

June 24, 2014

Decided:

July 9, 2014

Before KING and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit
Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Darrell Eugene Banks, Appellant Pro Se. Amy Elizabeth Ray,
Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-6122

Doc: 9

Filed: 07/09/2014

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Darrell
court’s

order

motion.
judge

Eugene

denying

relief

seeks

on

to

his

28

appeal
U.S.C.

the

district

§ 2255

(2012)

The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or
issues

a

certificate

§ 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012).
issue

Banks

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) (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 Banks has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we

grant the motion to file an addendum to the informal brief, deny
a

certificate

dispense

with

of

appealability,

oral

argument

and

dismiss

because

2

the

the

appeal.

facts

and

We
legal

Appeal: 14-6122

Doc: 9

contentions

Filed: 07/09/2014

are

adequately

Pg: 3 of 3

presented

in

the

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

3