US v. Larry McDaniel

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Certificate of appealability is denied. Originating case number: 5:11-cr-00252-D-1, 5:15-cv-00041-D. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency [999916192]. Mailed to: Larry Max McDaniel. [16-6248]

Appeal: 16-6248

Doc: 9

Filed: 08/24/2016

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6248

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
LARRY MAX MCDANIEL,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
James C. Dever III,
Chief District Judge. (5:11-cr-00252-D-1; 5:15-cv-00041-D)

Submitted:

August 15, 2016

Decided:

August 24, 2016

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and MOTZ and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Larry Max McDaniel, Appellant Pro Se.
William Miller Gilmore,
Roberto Francisco Ramirez, Assistant United States Attorneys,
Seth Morgan Wood, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh,
North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-6248

Doc: 9

Filed: 08/24/2016

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Larry Max McDaniel 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.
(2012).

See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B)

A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a

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

the

district

court

satisfies

this

jurists

would

reasonable

denies

relief

standard
find

by

that

on

the

merits,

demonstrating

the

district

a

that

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).
denies

relief

demonstrate

on

both

procedural

that

the

When the district court

grounds,

dispositive

the

prisoner

procedural

must

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
McDaniel 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: 16-6248

Doc: 9

contentions

Filed: 08/24/2016

are

adequately

Pg: 3 of 3

presented

in

the

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

3