US v. Recardo Blakney, (4th Cir. 2011)

Status: Not Published

Linked as:

Text

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-6562

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff â Appellee,

v.

RECARDO DOMICEKE BLAKNEY,

Defendant â Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Florence. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge.

(4:06-cr-00584-RBH-1; 4:11-cv-70024-RBH)

Submitted: August 25, 2011 Decided: September 16, 2011

Before WYNN and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Recardo Domiceke Blakney, Appellant Pro Se. Arthur Bradley

Parham, Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South

Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM: Recardo Domiceke Blakney seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 28U.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." 28U.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 Blakney 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 the court and argument would not aid the decisional.