US v. Norman Talley

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:10-cr-00038-1,3:13-cv-01754 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999549048]. Mailed to: Norman Talley. [14-7589]

Appeal: 14-7589

Doc: 8

Filed: 03/19/2015

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-7589

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
NORMAN L. TALLEY, a/k/a Storm,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Huntington.
Robert C. Chambers,
Chief District Judge. (3:10-cr-00038-1; 3:13-cv-01754)

Submitted:

March 17, 2015

Decided:

March 19, 2015

Before WILKINSON and KING, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Norman L. Talley, Appellant Pro Se. Gary L. Call, Steven Loew,
Assistant United States Attorneys, Charleston, West Virginia;
Joseph Franklin Adams, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY,
Huntington, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-7589

Doc: 8

Filed: 03/19/2015

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Norman L. Talley seeks to appeal the district court’s order
accepting

the

recommendation

of

the

magistrate

judge

and

dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion and
its subsequent order denying his Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
59(e) motion.
justice

or

The orders are not appealable unless a circuit

judge

issues

a

certificate

U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012).

of

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
Talley has not made the requisite showing.
a

certificate

dispense

with

of

appealability

oral

argument

and

dismiss

because
2

Accordingly, we deny

the

the

appeal.

facts

and

We
legal

Appeal: 14-7589

Doc: 8

contentions

Filed: 03/19/2015

are

adequately

Pg: 3 of 3

presented

in

the

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

3