US v. Arlington Ashley

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 4:10-cr-00088-RAJ-TEM-1,4:13-cv-00135-RAJ Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999723165]. Mailed to: Arlington Ashley. [15-7411]

Appeal: 15-7411

Doc: 9

Filed: 12/22/2015

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7411

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
ARLINGTON ASHLEY, a/k/a Arlington Efrain Ashley,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Newport News.
Raymond A. Jackson,
District Judge. (4:10-cr-00088-RAJ-TEM-1; 4:13-cv-00135-RAJ)

Submitted:

December 17, 2015

Decided: December 22, 2015

Before DIAZ and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Arlington Ashley, Appellant Pro Se. Eric Matthew Hurt, Assistant
United States Attorney, Newport News, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-7411

Doc: 9

Filed: 12/22/2015

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Arlington Ashley seeks to appeal the district court’s order
denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for reconsideration of
the

district

court’s

§ 2255 (2012) motion.
60(b)

motion,

justice

or

the

order

relief

on

his

28

U.S.C.

Because Ashley’s claim presents a true

order

judge

denying

issues

is
a

not

appealable

certificate

U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012).

of

unless

a

circuit

appealability.

28

See United States v. McRae, 793

F.3d 392, 397, 400 n.7 (4th Cir. 2015); Reid v. Angelone, 369
F.3d 363, 369 (4th Cir. 2004).

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
Ashley has not made the requisite showing.
2

Accordingly, we deny

Appeal: 15-7411

a

Doc: 9

Filed: 12/22/2015

certificate

dispense

of

with

contentions

are

Pg: 3 of 3

appealability

oral

argument

adequately

and

dismiss

because

presented

in

the
the

the

appeal.

facts

We

and

legal

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

3