US v. Charles Bell

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:13-cr-00128-TDS-1,1:15-cv-00544-WO-LPA. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000031080]. Mailed to: Charles Henry Bell. [16-6969]

Appeal: 16-6969

Doc: 19

Filed: 02/27/2017

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6969

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
CHARLES HENRY BELL, a/k/a Amir El-Bey,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder,
District Judge. (1:13-cr-00128-TDS-1; 1:15-cv-00544-WO-LPA)

Submitted:

February 23, 2017

Decided:

February 27, 2017

Before SHEDD and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit
Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Charles Henry Bell, Appellant Pro Se.
JoAnna Gibson McFadden,
Angela Hewlett Miller, Assistant United States Attorneys,
Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-6969

Doc: 19

Filed: 02/27/2017

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Charles Henry Bell seeks to appeal the district court’s
order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and
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.
A

certificate

of

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012).

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

merits,

demonstrating
district

that

court’s

debatable

or

a

When the district court denies

prisoner

reasonable

assessment

wrong.

satisfies

jurists

would

of

the

v.

McDaniel,

Slack

this

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
Bell has not made the requisite showing.
certificate
dispense

of

with

appealability
oral

argument

and

dismiss

because

2

Accordingly, we deny a

the

the

appeal.

facts

and

We
legal

Appeal: 16-6969

Doc: 19

contentions

are

Filed: 02/27/2017

adequately

Pg: 3 of 3

presented

in

the

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

3