US v. Dawantaye Boswell

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to appoint/assign counsel [999985408-2], denying Motion to appoint/assign counsel [999975824-2] Originating case number: 5:11-cr-00032-FPS-RWT-1,5:14-cv-00131-FPS-RWT Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000055405]. Mailed to: Dawantaye Boswell. [16-7606]

Appeal: 16-7606

Doc: 17

Filed: 04/04/2017

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-7606

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DAWANTAYE BOSWELL,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia,
at Wheeling. Frederick P. Stamp, Jr., Senior District Judge. (5:11-cr-00032-FPS-RWT1; 5:14-cv-00131-FPS-RWT)

Submitted: March 30, 2017

Decided: April 4, 2017

Before TRAXLER and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Dawantaye Boswell, Appellant Pro Se. Shawn Michael Adkins, Assistant United States
Attorney, Martinsburg, West Virginia, Randolph John Bernard, OFFICE OF THE
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, John Castle Parr, Assistant United States Attorney,
Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-7606

Doc: 17

Filed: 04/04/2017

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Dawantaye Boswell seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the
recommendation of the magistrate judge and 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 Boswell has not
made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny
Boswell’s motions for appointment of counsel, 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