United States v. Nyron Nichols , 621 F. App'x 239 ( 2015 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 15-6873
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    NYRON JOEL NICHOLS, a/k/a Red,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
    District of Virginia, at Roanoke.       Glen E. Conrad, Chief
    District Judge. (7:07-cr-00006-GEC-1; 7:12-cv-80544-GEC-RSB)
    Submitted:   October 30, 2015             Decided:   November 5, 2015
    Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Nyron Joel Nichols, Appellant Pro Se.  Ronald Andrew Bassford,
    Assistant United   States   Attorney, Roanoke,  Virginia,  for
    Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Nyron Joel Nichols 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
    Nichols has not made the requisite showing.                             Accordingly, we
    deny 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 contentions are adequately
    2
    presented in the materials before this court and argument would
    not aid the decisional process.
    DISMISSED
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 15-6873

Citation Numbers: 621 F. App'x 239

Filed Date: 11/5/2015

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 1/13/2023