US v. Derrick Mabry
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 5:12-cr-00275-D-1,5:15-cv-00578-D Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. . Mailed to: Derrick Mabry. [16-6925]
Pg: 1 of 3
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
DERRICK DONNELL MABRY, a/k/a Mayberry,
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. (5:12-cr-00275-D-1; 5:15-cv-00578-D)
December 8, 2016
December 20, 2016
Dismissed in part; affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam
Derrick Donnell Mabry, Appellant Pro Se. Eric David Goulian,
Seth Morgan Wood, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Patrick
Benton Weede, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh,
North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Pg: 2 of 3
Derrick Donnell Mabry seeks to appeal the district court’s
order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion and
his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012) motion.
After a review of the
record, we dismiss in part and affirm in part.
Regarding his § 2255 motion, this portion of the order is
certificate of appealability.
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012).
substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.”
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012).
When the district court denies
(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
claim of the denial of a constitutional right.
Slack, 529 U.S.
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that
Mabry has not made the requisite showing.
Accordingly, we deny
Pg: 3 of 3
a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal of the
denial of Mabry’s § 2255 motion.
Turning to Mabry’s § 3582(c)(2) motion, we conclude that
the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the
Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the
United States v. Mabry, No. 5:12-cr-00275-D-1
because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented
in the materials before this court and argument would not aid
the decisional process.
DISMISSED IN PART;
AFFIRMED IN PART
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?