US v. David Lewi

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--updating certificate of appealability status; denying Motion to appoint/assign counsel [999916794-2] Originating case number: 5:11-cr-00229-F-8,5:14-cv-00374-F Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000097262]. Mailed to: David Lewis. [16-7133]

Appeal: 16-7133

Doc: 14

Filed: 06/08/2017

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-7133

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DAVID LEWIS,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
James C. Fox, Senior
District Judge. (5:11-cr-00229-F-8; 5:14-cv-00374-F)

Submitted:

December 16, 2016

Decided:

June 8, 2017

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and MOTZ and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

David Lewis, Appellant Pro Se.
Shailika S. Kotiya, OFFICE OF
THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-7133

Doc: 14

Filed: 06/08/2017

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
David

Lewis

seeks

to

appeal

the

district

court’s

denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion.

order

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

demonstrating
district

merits,
that

court’s

debatable

or

a

When the district court denies

prisoner

reasonable

assessment

wrong.

Slack

satisfies

jurists

this

would

of

the

v.

McDaniel,

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
Lewis has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we deny

a certificate of appealability, deny Lewis’ motion to appoint
counsel, and dismiss the appeal.

We dispense with oral argument

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented

2

Appeal: 16-7133

Doc: 14

Filed: 06/08/2017

Pg: 3 of 3

in the materials before this court and argument would not aid
the decisional process.
DISMISSED

3