United States v. Everett Kaymore , 675 F. App'x 351 ( 2017 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-7245
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
EVERETT CORNELIUS KAYMORE, a/k/a CO, a/k/a Everet Cornelius
Kaymore,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Harrisonburg. Michael F. Urbanski,
District Judge. (5:10-cr-00016-MFU-RSB-1; 5:16-cv-81164-MFU-
RSB; 5:16-cv-81167-MFU-RSB)
Submitted: January 31, 2017 Decided: February 3, 2017
Before WILKINSON, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Everett Cornelius Kaymore, Appellant Pro Se. John Palmer
Fishwick, Jr., United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, Jeb
Thomas Terrien, Assistant United States Attorney, Harrisonburg,
Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Everett Cornelius Kaymore seeks to appeal the district
court’s orders denying as successive his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012)
motions, and the order denying his motion to reconsider. The
orders are 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
Kaymore 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
2
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3