United States v. Dwane Washington
United States v. Dwane Washington
Opinion
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 18-6016
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DWANE WASHINGTON, a/k/a Cisco,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. John A. Gibney, Jr., District Judge. (3:12-cr-00085-JAG-DJN-1; 3:15-cv- 00136-JAG-DJN)
Submitted: October 29, 2018 Decided: January 3, 2019
Before DIAZ and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Dwane Washington, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:
Dwane Washington 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). 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 Washington has not
made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny his motion 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
Reference
- Status
- Unpublished