US v. Silas Junior Mobley

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:09-cr-00189-RJC-DCK-2,3:13-cv-00458-RJC Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000021369]. Mailed to: Mobley. [16-7293]

Appeal: 16-7293

Doc: 5

Filed: 02/10/2017

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-7293

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
SILAS JUNIOR MOBLEY,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte.
Robert J. Conrad,
Jr., District Judge.
(3:09-cr-00189-RJC-DCK-2; 3:13-cv-00458RJC)

Submitted:

January 31, 2017

Decided:

February 10, 2017

Before NIEMEYER and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Silas Junior Mobley, Appellant Pro Se.
Steven R. Kaufman,
Assistant 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 16-7293

Doc: 5

Filed: 02/10/2017

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Silas Junior Mobley 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

§ 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012).
issue

absent

“a

of

appealability.

U.S.C.

A certificate of appealability will not

substantial

constitutional right.”

28

showing

of

the

denial

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012).

of

a

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

Cockrell,

(2000);

(2003).

see

Miller-El

v.

537

U.S.

322,

336-38

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
Mobley has not made the requisite showing.
a

certificate

We dispense

with

of

appealability

oral

argument

2

and

because

Accordingly, we deny
dismiss
the

the

facts

appeal.

and

legal

Appeal: 16-7293

Doc: 5

contentions

Filed: 02/10/2017

are

adequately

Pg: 3 of 3

presented

in

the

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

3