Categories: Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals Opinions

U.S. v. FARMER, 11-6869 (4th Cir. 12-6-2011)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CHARLIE ELBERT FARMER, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 11-6869.United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.Submitted: November 15, 2011.
Decided: December 6, 2011.

[EDITOR’S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge (5:09-cr-00297-BO-1; 5:11-cv-00116-BO).

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Charlie Elbert Farmer, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Gordon James, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Page 2

PER CURIAM:

Charlie Elbert Farmer seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2011) 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) (2006). 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) (2006). 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 Farmer 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

Page 3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

Page 1

jdjungle