United States v. Darius Bradley ( 2019 )


Menu:
  •                                      UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 19-6440
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    DARIUS JEROME BRADLEY,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
    Raleigh. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (5:16-cr-00185-D-1; 5:18-cv-00451-D)
    Submitted: July 18, 2019                                          Decided: July 23, 2019
    Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Darius Jerome Bradley, Appellant Pro Se.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Darius Jerome Bradley 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 Bradley 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: 19-6440

Filed Date: 7/23/2019

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 7/23/2019