US v. Quadrick Everette
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 4:10-cr-00043-D-1,4:14-cv-00113-D Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999530085]. Mailed to: Quadrick Everette. [14-7415]
Appeal: 14-7415
Doc: 13
Filed: 02/18/2015
Pg: 1 of 3
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-7415
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
QUADRICK MONTRELL EVERETTE, a/k/a Quat,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Greenville. James C. Dever, III,
Chief District Judge. (4:10-cr-00043-D-1; 4:14-cv-00113-D)
Submitted:
February 12, 2015
Decided:
February 18, 2015
Before MOTZ, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Quadrick Montrell Everette, Appellant Pro Se.
William Glenn
Perry, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville, North
Carolina; Seth Morgan Wood, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Appeal: 14-7415
Doc: 13
Filed: 02/18/2015
Pg: 2 of 3
PER CURIAM:
Quadrick
Montrell
Everette
seeks
to
appeal
the
district court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012)
motion as successive.
The order is not appealable unless a
circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability.
28
U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(1)(B)
(2012).
A
certificate
of
appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of
the denial of a constitutional right.”
(2012).
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 Everette 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: 14-7415
Doc: 13
contentions
are
Filed: 02/18/2015
adequately
Pg: 3 of 3
presented
in
the
materials
before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?