US v. Daryl Carter

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to appoint/assign counsel [999327954-2], updating certificate of appealability status Originating case number: 5:09-cr-00130-BO-1, 5:12-cv-00718-BO Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999403810]. Mailed to: Daryl Carter. [14-6393]

Appeal: 14-6393

Doc: 15

Filed: 07/28/2014

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-6393

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DARYL BERNARD CARTER,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
Terrance W. Boyle,
District Judge. (5:09-cr-00130-BO-1; 5:12-cv-00718-BO)

Submitted:

July 24, 2014

Before FLOYD and
Circuit Judge.

THACKER,

Decided: July 28, 2014

Circuit

Judges,

and

DAVIS,

Senior

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Daryl Bernard Carter, Appellant Pro Se.
Rudy E. Renfer,
Assistant United States Attorney, Shailika K. Shah, OFFICE OF
THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-6393

Doc: 15

Filed: 07/28/2014

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Daryl

Bernard

Carter

seeks

to

appeal

the

district

court’s orders denying as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012)
motion,

and

denying

judgment.

The

justice

judge

or

his

orders

subsequent
are

issues

a

not

motion

appealable

certificate

U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012).

to

of

alter

unless

or
a

amend

circuit

appealability.

28

A certificate of appealability

will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a
constitutional right.”

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012).

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 Carter has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we

deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.
further
dispense

deny
with

Carter’s
oral

motion
argument

for

appointment

because
2

the

of

facts

counsel
and

We
and

legal

Appeal: 14-6393

Doc: 15

contentions

are

Filed: 07/28/2014

adequately

Pg: 3 of 3

presented

in

the

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

3