From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Degraffenreid

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
Jun 19, 2018
No. 18-6240 (4th Cir. Jun. 19, 2018)

Opinion

No. 18-6240

06-19-2018

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. FRANK JUNIOR DEGRAFFENREID, Defendant - Appellant.

Frank Junior Degraffenreid, Appellant Pro Se.


UNPUBLISHED

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder, Chief District Judge. (1:13-cr-00147-TDS-1; 1:15-cv-00628-TDS-JEP) Before TRAXLER, DUNCAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Frank Junior Degraffenreid, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:

Frank Junior Degraffenreid seeks to appeal the district court's order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge 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 Degraffenreid has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Degraffenreid's motion for 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


Summaries of

United States v. Degraffenreid

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
Jun 19, 2018
No. 18-6240 (4th Cir. Jun. 19, 2018)
Case details for

United States v. Degraffenreid

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. FRANK JUNIOR…

Court:UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

Date published: Jun 19, 2018

Citations

No. 18-6240 (4th Cir. Jun. 19, 2018)