US v. Dewayne Richmond
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:13-cr-00055-CCE-1,1:15-cv-00572-CCE-JLW Copies to all parties and the district court. [999779130]. Mailed to: Dewayne Lamont Richmond. [15-7764]
Appeal: 15-7764
Doc: 8
Filed: 03/22/2016
Pg: 1 of 3
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-7764
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DEWAYNE LAMONT RICHMOND,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles,
District Judge. (1:13-cr-00055-CCE-1; 1:15-cv-00572-CCE-JLW)
Submitted:
March 17, 2016
Decided:
March 22, 2016
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Dewayne Lamont Richmond, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 15-7764
Doc: 8
Filed: 03/22/2016
Pg: 2 of 3
PER CURIAM:
Dewayne
Lamont
Richmond
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
Richmond 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: 15-7764
Doc: 8
contentions
Filed: 03/22/2016
are
adequately
Pg: 3 of 3
presented
in
the
materials
before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?