US v. Bruce Richardson

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 2:06-cr-00010-MR-DLH-1,2:09-cv-00016-MR. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999665973]. Mailed to: Bruce Richardson. [14-7513]

Appeal: 14-7513

Doc: 7

Filed: 09/24/2015

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-7513

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
BRUCE LEE RICHARDSON, a/k/a Chino,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Bryson City.
Martin K.
Reidinger, District Judge.
(2:06-cr-00010-MR-DLH-1; 2:09-cv00016-MR))

Submitted:

August 21, 2015

Decided:

September 24, 2015

Before MOTZ and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Bruce Lee Richardson, Appellant Pro Se.
Donald David Gast,
Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-7513

Doc: 7

Filed: 09/24/2015

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Bruce Lee Richardson seeks to appeal the district court’s
order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion.

Richardson

characterized the instant filing as a motion under Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6).

The district court reclassified

the filing as a § 2255 motion because it reasserted the same
contentions Richardson had raised in prior § 2255 and Rule 60(b)
motions.

The district court then denied relief on the merits.

This court does not require a certificate of appealability to
examine

whether

the

Richardson’s motion.
(4th

Cir.

conclude

2015).
that

the

district

court

properly

categorized

United States v. McRae, 793 F.3d 392, 398
Upon

independent

district

court

review

of

properly

the

record

categorized

we
the

instant motion.
The order denying relief on Richardson’s § 2255 motion is
not

appealable

unless

a

circuit

certificate of appealability.
A

certificate

of

justice

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.”
Id. § 2253(c)(2).

When the district court denies relief on the

merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that
“reasonable jurists would find the district court’s assessment
of

the

constitutional

claims

debatable

2

or

wrong.”

Slack

v.

Appeal: 14-7513

Doc: 7

Filed: 09/24/2015

Pg: 3 of 3

McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell,
537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003).

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

constitutional right.

a

debatable

claim

of

the

denial

of

a

Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that
Richardson has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we

deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.
dispense

with

contentions

are

oral

argument

adequately

because

presented

in

the
the

facts

We

and

legal

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

3