US v. Douglas Lee Payne, Jr.

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:13-cr-00059-LMB-1,1:14-cv-00911-LMB Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999646743]. Mailed to: Payne. [15-6586]

Appeal: 15-6586

Doc: 10

Filed: 08/25/2015

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6586

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DOUGLAS LEE PAYNE, JR.,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria.
Leonie M. Brinkema,
District Judge. (1:13-cr-00059-LMB-1; 1:14-cv-00911-LMB)

Submitted:

August 20, 2015

Decided:

August 25, 2015

Before DUNCAN, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Douglas Lee Payne, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.
Christopher David
Jackson, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, DC;
Karen Ledbetter Taylor, Assistant United States Attorney,
Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-6586

Doc: 10

Filed: 08/25/2015

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Douglas

Lee

Payne,

28

U.S.C.

the

district

The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or
certificate

§ 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012).
issue

absent

“a

of

§ 2255

appealability.

28

(2012)

U.S.C.

A certificate of appealability will not

substantial

constitutional right.”

his

appeal

motion.

a

on

to

order

issues

relief

seeks

court’s

judge

denying

Jr.,

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
Payne 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: 15-6586

Doc: 10

contentions

are

Filed: 08/25/2015

adequately

Pg: 3 of 3

presented

in

the

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED

3