US v. Roderick Avent

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to appoint/assign counsel [999910173-2] Originating case number: 5:14-cr-00274-D-1,5:15-cv-00559-D Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000054317]. Mailed to: R Avent. [16-7003]

Appeal: 16-7003

Doc: 9

Filed: 04/03/2017

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-7003

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
RODERICK MARCELL AVENT,
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. (5:14-cr-00274-D-1; 5:15-cv-00559D)

Submitted: March 30, 2017

Decided: April 3, 2017

Before TRAXLER and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Roderick Marcell Avent, Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant United
States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-7003

Doc: 9

Filed: 04/03/2017

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Roderick Marcell Avent 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.” 28 U.S.C. § 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. 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 Avent has not made
the requisite showing. Avent’s claim is without merit in light of Beckles v. United States,
__ U.S. __, No. 15-8544, 2017 WL 855781 (U.S. Mar. 6, 2017). Accordingly, we deny a
certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We further deny Avent’s motion for
appointment of counsel. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument
would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
2