United States v. Willie McCain

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
United States v. Willie McCain, 556 F. App'x 274 (4th Cir. 2014)

United States v. Willie McCain

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-7987

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

WILLIE JUNIOR MCCAIN,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Danville. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior District Judge. (4:05-cr-00011-JLK-1; 4:13-cv-80678-JLK-RSB)

Submitted: February 20, 2014 Decided: February 26, 2014

Before DUNCAN, DIAZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Willie Junior McCain, Appellant Pro Se. Donald Ray Wolthuis, Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:

Willie Junior McCain seeks to appeal the district

court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. 2255 (2012) motion as

successive and unauthorized. 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 McCain 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

2 contentions are adequately presented in the materials before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

3

Reference

Status
Unpublished