US v. Carlos Scott, (4th Cir. 2011)

Status: Not Published

Linked as:

Text

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-6512

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

CARLOS DEAN SCOTT, a/k/a Bink, a/k/a Binky,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern

District of West Virginia, at Bluefield. David A. Faber, Senior

District Judge. (1:02-cr-00241-1; 1:08-cv-00047)

Submitted: June 16, 2011 Decided: June 21, 2011

Before NIEMEYER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON,

Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Carlos Dean Scott, Appellant Pro Se. John Lanier File,

Assistant United States Attorney, Beckley, West Virginia, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM: Carlos Dean Scott seeks to appeal the district court's order adopting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2010) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(1) (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). 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 Scott 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 process.