United States v. Donnell Coppedge , 544 F. App'x 197 ( 2013 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-6788
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
DONNELL COPPEDGE,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Greenville. James C. Fox, Senior
District Judge. (4:09-cr-00054-F-1; 4:12-cv-00249-F)
Submitted: October 22, 2013 Decided: October 24, 2013
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Donnell Coppedge, Appellant Pro Se. William Glenn Perry, OFFICE
OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville, North Carolina;
Rudy E. Renfer, Assistant United States Attorney, Shailika K.
Shah, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Donnell Coppedge seeks to appeal the district court’s
order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2013)
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) (2006). 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) (2006). 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 Coppedge has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly,
we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.
We deny Coppedge’s motion to appoint counsel. We dispense with
oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
2
adequately presented in the materials before this court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3