US v. Darryl Booker
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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. . Mailed to: Booker, Phillips. [16-7229]
Pg: 1 of 3
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
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)
January 17, 2017
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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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,
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Pg: 2 of 3
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.
certificate of appealability.
The order is
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
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
Pg: 3 of 3
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?