US v. Bobbie Edward

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed denying Motion for certificate of appealability (Local Rule 22(a)) [999862096-2]. Originating case number: 4:11-cr-00055-AWA-DEM-10, 4:14-cv-00050-AWA. Copies to all parties and the district court. [999992596]. Mailed to: Bobbie Edwards. [16-6763]

Appeal: 16-6763

Doc: 7

Filed: 12/22/2016

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6763

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
BOBBIE RAY EDWARDS, a/k/a Tank,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Newport News. Arenda L. Wright Allen,
District Judge. (4:11-cr-00055-AWA-DEM-10; 4:14-cv-00050-AWA)

Submitted:

December 14, 2016

Decided:

December 22, 2016

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Bobbie Ray Edwards, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Edward Bradenham,
II, Assistant United States Attorney, Newport News, Virginia;
Dee Mullarkey Sterling, Assistant United States Attorney,
Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-6763

Doc: 7

Filed: 12/22/2016

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Bobbie Ray Edwards 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

(2012).

of

appealability.

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).
relief

on

the

demonstrating
district

merits,
that

court’s

debatable

or

a

When the district court denies

prisoner

reasonable

assessment

wrong.

Slack

satisfies

jurists

this

would

of

the

v.

McDaniel,

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
Edwards has not made the requisite showing.
deny

Edwards’

motion

dismiss the appeal.
facts

and

legal

for

a

certificate

of

Accordingly, we
appealability

and

We dispense with oral argument because the

contentions

are

2

adequately

presented

in

the

Appeal: 16-6763

Doc: 7

materials

before

Filed: 12/22/2016

this

court

Pg: 3 of 3

and

argument

would

not

aid

the

decisional process.
DISMISSED

3