US v. Larry Wayne Aiken

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--updating certificate of appealability status Originating case number: 5:14-cr-00022-RLV-DSC-1,5:16-cv-00090-RLV Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000079970]. Mailed to: Larry Wayne Aiken. [16-7192]

Appeal: 16-7192

Doc: 12

Filed: 05/11/2017

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-7192

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
LARRY WAYNE AIKEN,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at
Statesville. Richard L. Voorhees, District Judge. (5:14-cr-00022-RLV-DSC-1; 5:16-cv00090-RLV)

Submitted: April 24, 2017

Decided: May 11, 2017

Before KING and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Larry Wayne Aiken, Appellant Pro Se. Kimlani M. Ford, Assistant United States Attorney,
Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-7192

Doc: 12

Filed: 05/11/2017

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Larry Wayne Aiken 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 Aiken has not made
the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we deny Aiken’s motion for a certificate of

appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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