United States v. Tavis Houpe , 704 F. App'x 276 ( 2017 )


Menu:
  •                                     UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 17-6965
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    TAVIS LABRON HOUPE,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at
    Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles, District Judge. (1:15-cr-00193-CCE-1; 1:16-cv-
    01090-CCE-JEP)
    Submitted: November 21, 2017                                Decided: November 28, 2017
    Before WYNN and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Tavis Labron Houpe, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Francis Joseph, Terry Michael
    Meinecke, Angela Hewlett Miller, Assistant United States Attorneys, Greensboro, North
    Carolina, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Tavis Labron Houpe seeks to appeal the district court’s order adopting the
    magistrate judge’s report and recommendation and 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 Houpe 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
    contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument
    would not aid the decisional process.
    DISMISSED
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 17-6965

Citation Numbers: 704 F. App'x 276

Filed Date: 11/28/2017

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 1/13/2023