US v. Darryl Booker

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:11-cr-00258-MOC-DSC-2,3:14-cv-00341-MOC Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000006344]. Mailed to: Booker, Phillips. [16-7229]

Appeal: 16-7229

Doc: 7

Filed: 01/19/2017

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-7229

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DARRYL BOOKER,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Max O. Cogburn, Jr.,
District Judge. (3:11-cr-00258-MOC-DSC-2; 3:14-cv-00341-MOC)

Submitted:

January 17, 2017

Decided:

January 19, 2017

Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Darryl Booker, Appellant Pro Se. William Michael Miller, Assistant
United States Attorney, Ann Claire H. Phillips, OFFICE OF THE
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina; Amy Elizabeth
Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina,
for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-7229

Doc: 7

Filed: 01/19/2017

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Darryl Booker seeks to appeal the district court’s order
denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b), (d) motion for relief from the
order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion.
not

appealable

unless

a

circuit

certificate of appealability.

justice

or

The order is

judge

issues

a

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
Booker has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we deny

a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense
with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are

2

Appeal: 16-7229

Doc: 7

adequately

Filed: 01/19/2017

presented

in

the

Pg: 3 of 3

materials

before

this

court

and

argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED

3