US v. William Syke

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:13-cr-00350-LMB-3,1:16-cv-00229-LMB Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000044097]. Mailed to: W Sykes. [16-7767]

Appeal: 16-7767

Doc: 7

Filed: 03/17/2017

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-7767

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
WILLIAM SYKES, a/k/a Black,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria.
Leonie M. Brinkema,
District Judge. (1:13-cr-00350-LMB-3; 1:16-cv-00229-LMB)

Submitted:

March 14, 2017

Before FLOYD and
Circuit Judge.

HARRIS,

Decided:

Circuit

Judges,

and

March 17, 2017

DAVIS,

Senior

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

William Sykes, Appellant Pro Se. Dennis Michael Fitzpatrick,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-7767

Doc: 7

Filed: 03/17/2017

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
William Sykes seeks to appeal the district court’s orders
denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion and denying
his motion for reconsideration.
unless

a

circuit

appealability.

justice

The orders are not appealable

or

judge

issues

a

certificate

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012).

of

A certificate

of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of
the denial of a constitutional right.”
(2012).

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2)

When the district court denies relief on the merits, a

prisoner

satisfies

this

jurists

would

reasonable

standard
find

by

that

demonstrating

the

district

that

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).
denies

relief

demonstrate

on

both

procedural

that

the

When the district court

grounds,

dispositive

the

prisoner

procedural

must

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
Sykes has not made the requisite showing.
a

certificate

dispense

with

of

appealability

oral

argument

and

dismiss

because

2

Accordingly, we deny

the

the

appeal.

facts

and

We
legal

Appeal: 16-7767

Doc: 7

contentions

Filed: 03/17/2017

are

adequately

Pg: 3 of 3

presented

in

the

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

3