US v. Kevin Deese

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case numbers: 7:13-cr-00042-D-1, 7:15-cv-00056-D. Copies to all parties and the district court. [999762871]. Mailed to: Appellant. [15-7832]

Appeal: 15-7832

Doc: 7

Filed: 02/26/2016

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7832

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
KEVIN RAY DEESE,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Dever, III,
Chief District Judge. (7:13-cr-00042-D-1; 7:15-cv-00056-D)

Submitted:

February 23, 2016

Decided:

February 26, 2016

Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kevin Ray Deese, Appellant Pro Se. James Bradsher, Seth Morgan
Wood, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Jennifer P. MayParker, Brian Scott Meyers, Assistant United States Attorneys,
Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-7832

Doc: 7

Filed: 02/26/2016

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Kevin Ray Deese seeks to appeal the district court’s order
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.
A

certificate

of

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012).

appealability

will

not

issue

absent

“a

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.”
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012).
relief

on

the

demonstrating
district

merits,
that

court’s

debatable

or

a

When the district court denies

prisoner

reasonable

assessment

wrong.

satisfies

jurists

would

of

the

v.

McDaniel,

Slack

this

standard

find

U.S.

that

the

claims

constitutional
529

by

is

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

claim of the denial of a constitutional right.

a

debatable

Slack, 529 U.S.

at 484-85.
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that
Deese has not made the requisite showing.
a

certificate

dispense

with

of

appealability

oral

argument

and

dismiss

because

2

Accordingly, we deny

the

the

appeal.

facts

and

We
legal

Appeal: 15-7832

Doc: 7

contentions

Filed: 02/26/2016

are

adequately

Pg: 3 of 3

presented

in

the

materials

before

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

3