US v. Michael Cornwell

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:06-cr-00216-RJC-3,3:12-cv-00300-RJC Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999774263]. Mailed to: Michael Cornwell. [15-7408]

Appeal: 15-7408

Doc: 7

Filed: 03/15/2016

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7408

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
MICHAEL ANTHONY CORNWELL,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte.
Robert J. Conrad,
Jr., District Judge. (3:06-cr-00216-RJC-3; 3:12-cv-00300-RJC)

Submitted:

February 29, 2016

Decided:

March 15, 2016

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael Anthony Cornwell, Appellant Pro Se.
Richard Lee
Edwards, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North
Carolina; Kenneth Michel Smith, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-7408

Doc: 7

Filed: 03/15/2016

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Michael

Anthony

Cornwell

28

U.S.C.

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

the

motion.

a

on

appeal

order

issues

relief

to

court’s

judge

denying

seeks

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
Cornwell 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
2