US v. Darrell Nelson

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed denying certificate of appealability. Originating case number: 5:07-cr-00043-FPS-MJA-1, 5:16-cv-00096-FPS-MJA. Copies to all parties and the district court. [1000165423]. Mailed to: Darrell Nelson. [17-6588]

Appeal: 17-6588

Doc: 5

Filed: 10/02/2017

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-6588

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DARRELL NELSON,
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. (5:07-cr-00043-FPS-MJA-1;
5:16-cv-00096-FPS-MJA)

Submitted: September 28, 2017

Decided: October 2, 2017

Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Darrell Nelson, Appellant Pro Se. Randolph John Bernard, OFFICE OF THE UNITED
STATES ATTORNEY, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 17-6588

Doc: 5

Filed: 10/02/2017

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Darrell Nelson 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. 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 Nelson has not
made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny 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