US v. Clifton Washington

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--updating certificate of appealability status Originating case number: 5:09-cr-00105-D-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999684774]. Mailed to: Clifton Jerome Washington. [15-7003]

Appeal: 15-7003

Doc: 7

Filed: 10/23/2015

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7003

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
CLIFTON JEROME WASHINGTON,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
James C. Dever, III,
Chief District Judge. (5:09-cr-00105-D-1)

Submitted:

October 20, 2015

Decided:

October 23, 2015

Before MOTZ, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Clifton Jerome Washington, Appellant Pro Se.
Eric David
Goulian, Shailika S. Kotiya, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-7003

Doc: 7

Filed: 10/23/2015

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Clifton

Jerome

Washington

seeks

to

appeal

the

district

court’s orders denying relief on his self-styled “motion for
summary judgment” and “motion to rectify order and judgment of
court[,]” related to his prior, unsuccessful motion under 28
U.S.C. § 2255 (2012).

The orders are 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
Washington has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we

deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.
dispense

with

oral

argument

because
2

the

facts

and

We

legal

Appeal: 15-7003

Doc: 7

contentions

Filed: 10/23/2015

are

adequately

Pg: 3 of 3

presented

in

the

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

3