US v. Andrei Lee Royster

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed denying certificate of appealability, denying Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999697879-2]. Originating case number: 1:95-cr-00090-NCT-2,1:95-cr-00090-NCT-2. Copies to all parties and the district court. [999765011]. Mailed to: Andrei Royster. [15-7665]

Appeal: 15-7665

Doc: 15

Filed: 03/01/2016

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7665

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ANDREI LEE ROYSTER, a/k/a Andre Lee Royster, a/k/a Dre, a/k/a
Muddy Waters,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro.
N. Carlton Tilley,
Jr., Senior District Judge. (1:95-cr-00090-NCT-2)

Submitted:

February 25, 2016

Decided:

March 1, 2016

Before SHEDD and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit
Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Andrei Lee Royster, Appellant Pro Se.
Michael Francis Joseph,
Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-7665

Doc: 15

Filed: 03/01/2016

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Andrei Lee Royster seeks to appeal the district court’s order
accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying
relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion.

The order is 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 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 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322,
336-38 (2003). 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
Royster

has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we deny

a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma
pauperis, and dismiss the appeal.

We dispense with oral argument

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented

2

Appeal: 15-7665

Doc: 15

Filed: 03/01/2016

Pg: 3 of 3

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

3