United States v. Robert Huitt, Jr. ( 2019 )


Menu:
  •                                     UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 19-6416
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    ROBERT HENRY HUITT, JR.,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina,
    at Charlotte. Max O. Cogburn, Jr., District Judge. (3:16-cr-00206-MOC-DSC-1; 3:18-
    cv-00560-MOC)
    Submitted: June 13, 2019                                          Decided: June 18, 2019
    Before WYNN and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Robert Henry Huitt, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Robert Henry Huitt, Jr., 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. 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 Huitt 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 this court and argument would not aid the
    decisional process.
    DISMISSED
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 19-6416

Filed Date: 6/18/2019

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 6/18/2019