US v. Dennis Lamar Bruton
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:09-cr-00013-MR-3,1:12-cv-00123-MR Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. . Mailed to: Bruton. [16-7260]
Pg: 1 of 3
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
DENNIS LAMAR BRUTON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Martin K. Reidinger,
District Judge. (1:09-cr-00013-MR-3; 1:12-cv-00123-MR)
December 15, 2016
December 20, 2016
Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Dennis Lamar Bruton, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Michael Kent,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Amy Elizabeth Ray,
Assistant United States Attorney Asheville, North Carolina; Jill
Westmoreland Rose, United States Attorney, Thomas A. O’Malley,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina,
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Pg: 2 of 3
Dennis Lamar Bruton seeks to appeal the district court’s
reconsideration of the district court’s order denying relief on
his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion.
The order is not appealable
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012).
of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of
the denial of a constitutional right.”
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2)
When the district court denies relief on the merits, a
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
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
Bruton has not made the requisite showing.
Accordingly, we deny
Pg: 3 of 3
this court and 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?