US v. Dellonte Seburn

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying a certificate of appealability; denying Motion to suspend [999915776-2], denying Motion to suspend [999913229-2]; denying Motion to remand case [999915776-3], denying Motion to remand case [999913229-3]; denying Motion to appoint/assign counsel [999913229-4]. Originating case number: 5:13-cr-00005-D-1,5:15-cv-00204-D. Copies to all parties and the district court. [1000030939]. Mailed to: Dellonte Seburn. [16-6985]

Appeal: 16-6985

Doc: 17

Filed: 02/27/2017

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6985

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DELLONTE RASHAUN SEBURN,
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. (5:13-cr-00005-D-1; 5:15-cv-00204-D)

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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Dellonte Rashaun Seburn, Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer P. May-Parker,
Roberto Francisco Ramirez, Assistant United States Attorneys,
Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-6985

Doc: 17

Filed: 02/27/2017

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Dellonte Rashaun Seburn 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.

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012).

A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial
showing of the denial of a constitutional right.”
§ 2253(c)(2) (2012).

28 U.S.C.

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 (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 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
Seburn has not made the requisite showing.
a

certificate

of

appealability

and

Accordingly, we deny
dismiss

the

appeal.

Additionally, we deny Seburn’s motion for appointment of counsel
and to remand or suspend the certificate of appealability review.
We

dispense

with

oral

argument

2

because

the

facts

and

legal

Appeal: 16-6985

Doc: 17

Filed: 02/27/2017

Pg: 3 of 3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED

3