US v. Raoul Lafond

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion for other relief [999412244-2]; denying Motion for bail/release pending appeal (Local Rule 9(a) and (b)) [999395847-2]. Originating case number: 6:96-cr-00212-WO-1,1:12-cv-01200-WO-JEP. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999423007]. Mailed to: Raoul Lafond. [14-6785]

Appeal: 14-6785

Doc: 9

Filed: 08/26/2014

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-6785

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
RAOUL LAFOND, a/k/a Chris Lafond, a/k/a Jim, a/k/a Jamaican
Jim, a/k/a Derrick Burch, a/k/a Fletcher Busbee, a/k/a
Ronald Elie, a/k/a Ronald Ely,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro.
William L. Osteen,
Jr., Chief District Judge.
(6:96-cr-00212-WO-1; 1:12-cv-01200WO-JEP)

Submitted:

August 21, 2014

Decided:

August 26, 2014

Before SHEDD, AGEE, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Raoul Lafond, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Michael Hamilton, Angela
Hewlett Miller, Assistant United States Attorneys, Greensboro,
North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-6785

Doc: 9

Filed: 08/26/2014

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Raoul Lafond seeks to appeal from the district court’s
order

adopting

the

magistrate

judge’s

recommendations

and

(1) denying Lafond’s motions for default judgment and motion to
dismiss, and (2) construing his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion as
a

28

U.S.C.

successive.
justice

or

§ 2255

(2012)

The

order

is

judge

issues

a

motion
not

and

appealable

certificate

U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012).

dismissing

of

unless

it

a

as

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 Lafond has not made the requisite showing.
deny

a

certificate

of

appealability
2

and

Accordingly, we

dismiss

the

appeal.

Appeal: 14-6785

Doc: 9

Filed: 08/26/2014

Pg: 3 of 3

Additionally, we deny Lafond’s motions for entry of default and
for

release

on

bail

pending

appeal.

We

dispense

with

oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
presented in the materials before this court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED

3