US v. Corey Kerr

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:11-cr-00219-NCT-1,1:15-cv-00005-NCT-JLW. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000319113]. Mailed to: Kerr. [18-6400]

Appeal: 18-6400

Doc: 7

Filed: 06/26/2018

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-6400

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
COREY DEWAYNE KERR,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at
Greensboro. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., Senior District Judge. (1:11-cr-00219-NCT-1; 1:15cv-00005-NCT-JLW)

Submitted: June 21, 2018

Decided: June 26, 2018

Before DIAZ and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Corey Dewayne Kerr, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 18-6400

Doc: 7

Filed: 06/26/2018

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Corey Dewayne Kerr seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the
recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on Kerr’s 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 Kerr 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