US v. Charles Locklear, Jr.

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed denying certificate of appealability. Originating case number: 7:11-cr-00067-F-1, 7:14-cv-00112-F. Copies to all parties and the district court. [999920673]. Mailed to: Charles Locklear, Jr. [16-6039]

Appeal: 16-6039

Doc: 8

Filed: 08/31/2016

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6039

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
CHARLES RONALD LOCKLEAR, JR.,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Fox, Senior
District Judge. (7:11-cr-00067-F-1; 7:14-cv-00112-F)

Submitted:

August 19, 2016

Decided:

August 31, 2016

Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Charles Ronald Locklear, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Seth Morgan
Wood, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North
Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-6039

Doc: 8

Filed: 08/31/2016

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Charles Ronald Locklear, Jr., seeks to appeal the district
court’s

order

motion.

The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or

judge

issues

denying

a

relief

certificate

§ 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012).
issue

absent

“a

on

of

28

U.S.C.

§ 2255

appealability.

28

(2012)

U.S.C.

A certificate of appealability will not

substantial

constitutional right.”

his

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
Locklear 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: 16-6039

Doc: 8

contentions

Filed: 08/31/2016

are

adequately

Pg: 3 of 3

presented

in

the

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

3