US v. Albert Charles Burge
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:09-cr-00017-GCM-DLH-1,1:12-cv-00375-GCM Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999588669]. Mailed to: Burgess. [15-6347]
Appeal: 15-6347
Doc: 13
Filed: 05/22/2015
Pg: 1 of 3
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-6347
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ALBERT CHARLES BURGESS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Asheville.
Graham C. Mullen,
Senior District Judge. (1:09-cr-00017-GCM-DLH-1; 1:12-cv-00375GCM)
Submitted:
May 19, 2015
Decided:
May 22, 2015
Before NIEMEYER and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Albert Charles Burgess, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.
Thomas Richard
Ascik, Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorneys,
Asheville, North Carolina; Kimlani M. Ford, Cortney Randall,
Edward R. Ryan, Assistant United States Attorneys, Charlotte,
North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Appeal: 15-6347
Doc: 13
Filed: 05/22/2015
Pg: 2 of 3
PER CURIAM:
Albert Charles Burgess, Jr., seeks to appeal the district
court’s orders dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motions.
The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge
issues
a
certificate
§ 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012).
issue
absent
“a
of
appealability.
U.S.C.
A certificate of appealability will not
substantial
constitutional right.”
28
showing
of
the
denial
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012).
of
a
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
Burgess has not made the requisite showing.
deny
a
certificate
We dispense
with
of
oral
appealability
argument
2
and
because
Accordingly, we
dismiss
the
the
facts
appeal.
and
legal
Appeal: 15-6347
Doc: 13
contentions
are
Filed: 05/22/2015
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?