United States v. Silas Junior Mobley , 676 F. App'x 191 ( 2017 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 16-7293
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    SILAS JUNIOR MOBLEY,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
    District of North Carolina, at Charlotte.    Robert J. Conrad,
    Jr., District Judge.   (3:09-cr-00189-RJC-DCK-2; 3:13-cv-00458-
    RJC)
    Submitted:   January 31, 2017             Decided:   February 10, 2017
    Before NIEMEYER and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
    Circuit Judge.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Silas Junior Mobley, Appellant Pro Se.       Steven R. Kaufman,
    Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, Amy
    Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville,
    North Carolina, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Silas Junior Mobley 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
    Mobley 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
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 16-7293

Citation Numbers: 676 F. App'x 191

Filed Date: 2/10/2017

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 1/13/2023