US v. Bernard Celestine

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 4:95-cr-00041-H-9,4:14-cv-00054-H Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999481891]. Mailed to: Bernard Celestine. [14-6971]

Appeal: 14-6971

Doc: 10

Filed: 11/25/2014

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-6971

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
BERNARD CELESTINE, a/k/a Speed, a/k/a Beaver,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Greenville.
Malcolm J. Howard,
Senior District Judge. (4:95-cr-00041-H-9; 4:14-cv-00054-H)

Submitted:

November 20, 2014

Decided:

November 25, 2014

Before KING and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Bernard Celestine, Appellant Pro Se.
Rudolf A. Renfer, Jr.,
Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-6971

Doc: 10

Filed: 11/25/2014

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Bernard Celestine seeks to appeal the district court’s
orders

dismissing

his

28

U.S.C.

§

2255

(2012)

motion

as

successive and unauthorized, and denying his subsequently filed
motion for a certificate of appealability.
appealable

unless

a

circuit

certificate of appealability.
A

certificate

of

justice

These orders are not
or

judge

issues

a

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012).

appealability

will

not

issue

absent

“a

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.”
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2).
When the district court denies relief on the merits, a
prisoner

satisfies

this

jurists

would

reasonable

standard
find

by

that

demonstrating

the

district

that

court’s

assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong.
Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v.
Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003).
denies

relief

demonstrate

on

both

procedural

that

the

When the district court

grounds,

dispositive

the

prisoner

procedural

must

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 Celestine 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: 14-6971

Doc: 10

contentions

are

Filed: 11/25/2014

adequately

Pg: 3 of 3

presented

in

the

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

3