From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Bridgers

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
Jun 28, 2016
No. 16-6197 (4th Cir. Jun. 28, 2016)

Opinion

No. 16-6197

06-28-2016

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. KEVIN EUGENE BRIDGERS, a/k/a KB, Defendant - Appellant.

Kevin Eugene Bridgers, Appellant Pro Se. Dena Janae King, Seth Morgan Wood, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.


UNPUBLISHED Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (5:13-cr-00183-BO-2; 5:15-cv-00315-BO) Before MOTZ, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kevin Eugene Bridgers, Appellant Pro Se. Dena Janae King, Seth Morgan Wood, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:

Kevin Eugene Bridgers seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing as untimely 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 Bridgers 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


Summaries of

United States v. Bridgers

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
Jun 28, 2016
No. 16-6197 (4th Cir. Jun. 28, 2016)
Case details for

United States v. Bridgers

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. KEVIN EUGENE BRIDGERS…

Court:UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

Date published: Jun 28, 2016

Citations

No. 16-6197 (4th Cir. Jun. 28, 2016)