United States v. Robert Pryor , 585 F. App'x 36 ( 2014 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 14-6772
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    ROBERT DAVID PRYOR, a/k/a Yard Owl,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    South Carolina, at Columbia.     Cameron McGowan Currie, Senior
    District Judge. (3:12-cr-00430-CMC-6; 3:13-cv-03070-CMC)
    Submitted:   October 14, 2014              Decided:   October 22, 2014
    Before NIEMEYER   and   KING,   Circuit   Judges,   and   DAVIS,   Senior
    Circuit Judge.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Robert David Pryor, Appellant Pro Se. James Hunter May, Stanley
    D. Ragsdale, Julius Ness Richardson, Assistant United States
    Attorneys, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Robert        David    Pryor   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 Pryor has not made the requisite showing.                          Accordingly, we
    deny Pryor’s motion for a certificate of appealability, deny
    leave to proceed in forma pauperis, 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
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 14-6772

Citation Numbers: 585 F. App'x 36

Filed Date: 10/22/2014

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 1/13/2023