US v. Adrian Parker
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:10-cr-00087-FDW-4,3:16-cv-00035-FDW Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999838847]. Mailed to: Adrian Parker. [16-6200]
Appeal: 16-6200
Doc: 11
Filed: 06/01/2016
Pg: 1 of 3
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-6200
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
ADRIAN PARKER, a/k/a Great One, a/k/a Rock,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte.
Frank D. Whitney,
Chief District Judge. (3:10-cr-00087-FDW-4; 3:16-cv-00035-FDW)
Submitted:
May 26, 2016
Decided:
June 1, 2016
Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and NIEMEYER and FLOYD, Circuit
Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Adrian Parker, Appellant Pro Se. Steven R. Kaufman, Assistant
United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Appeal: 16-6200
Doc: 11
Filed: 06/01/2016
Pg: 2 of 3
PER CURIAM:
Adrian Parker seeks to appeal the district court’s order
dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion as successive.
The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge
issues
a
certificate
§ 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012).
issue
absent
“a
of
appealability.
U.S.C.
A certificate of appealability will not
substantial
constitutional right.”
28
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
Parker 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: 16-6200
Doc: 11
contentions
are
Filed: 06/01/2016
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?