US v. Roger Van Santvoord Camp


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion certificate of appealability (Local Rule 22(a)) [999991114-2], denying Motion certificate of appealability (Local Rule 22(a)) [1000040906-2]; denying Motion for for the Chief Judge's Dispositive Finding [1000040906-3] Originating case number: 5:11-cr-00155-BO-1,5:15-cv-00524-BO Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000097201]. Mailed to: Roger Van Santvoord Camp. [16-7735]

Download PDF
Appeal: 16-7735 Doc: 9 Filed: 06/08/2017 Pg: 1 of 2 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-7735 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ROGER VAN SANTVOORD CAMP, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (5:11-cr-00155-BO-1; 5:15-cv-00524-BO) Submitted: May 25, 2017 Decided: June 8, 2017 Before KING, SHEDD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Roger Van Santvoord Camp, Appellant Pro Se. G. Norman Acker, III, Seth Morgan Wood, Assistant United States Attorneys, Banumathi Rangarajan, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Appeal: 16-7735 Doc: 9 Filed: 06/08/2017 Pg: 2 of 2 PER CURIAM: Roger Van Santvoord Camp 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 of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012); Buck v. Davis, 137 S. Ct. 759, 773 (2017). 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 Camp has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny his motions for a certificate of appealability 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

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?