United States v. Zachary Sanders , 592 F. App'x 222 ( 2015 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-7672
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ZACHARY WILLIAM SANDERS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever III,
Chief District Judge. (5:06-cr-00253-D-1; 5:12-cv-00503-D)
Submitted: January 29, 2015 Decided: February 9, 2015
Before WILKINSON, KING, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed in part; affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.
Zachary William Sanders, Appellant Pro Se. Jane J. Jackson,
Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant United States Attorneys,
Felice McConnell Corpening, Adam Frederick Hulbig, OFFICE OF THE
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Zachary William Sanders seeks to appeal the district
court’s order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012)
motion and denying his motion for reduction of sentence under 18
U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012). We dismiss in part, and affirm in
part.
The district court’s dismissal of Sanders’ § 2255
motion 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 Sanders has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly,
2
we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss this portion
of the appeal.
As to the district court’s denial of Sanders’
§ 3582(c)(2) motion, we have reviewed the record and find no
reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm this portion of the
district court’s order for the reasons stated by the district
court. See United States v. Sanders, Nos. 5:06-cr-00253-D-1,
5:12-cv-00503-D (E.D.N.C. Sept. 13, 2013). 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 IN PART;
AFFIRMED IN PART
3