Opinion
No. 14-6004
01-28-2019
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. BOBBY LEE BROADDUS, Defendant - Appellant.
Bobby Lee Broaddus, Appellant Pro Se.
UNPUBLISHED
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Senior District Judge. (3:99-cr-00194-GCM-1; 3:12-cv-00432-GCM) Before WYNN and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Bobby Lee Broaddus, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:
Bobby Lee Broaddus 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 Broaddus 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.
We conclude that Broaddus is not aided by our recent decisions in United States v. Wheeler, 886 F.3d 415 (4th Cir. 2018), petition for cert. filed (No. 18-420) (U.S. Oct. 3, 2018), or Lester v. Flournoy, 909 F.3d 708 (4th Cir. 2018). Rather, his case is controlled by Whiteside v. United States, 775 F.3d 180 (4th Cir. 2014) (en banc). --------
DISMISSED