US v. Dellonte Seburn
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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. . Mailed to: Dellonte Seburn. [16-6985]
Pg: 1 of 3
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
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)
February 23, 2017
February 27, 2017
Before SHEDD and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Pg: 2 of 3
Dellonte Rashaun Seburn seeks to appeal the district court’s
order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion.
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).
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.
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.
Accordingly, we deny
Additionally, we deny Seburn’s motion for appointment of counsel
and to remand or suspend the certificate of appealability review.
Pg: 3 of 3
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
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?