United States v. Cox

Full title: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. LIONEL LAMONT COX…

Court: UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

Date published: Apr 10, 2019

No. 18-7366 (4th Cir. Apr. 10, 2019)

Opinion

No. 18-7366

04-10-2019

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. LIONEL LAMONT COX, Defendant - Appellant.

Lionel Lamont Cox, Appellant Pro Se.

PER CURIAM

UNPUBLISHED

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (5:12-cr-00288-FL-1; 5:15-cv-00571-FL) Before WILKINSON and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and DUNCAN, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Lionel Lamont Cox, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:

Lionel Lamont Cox seeks to appeal the district court's order granting the Government's motion to dismiss 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 Cox has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny Cox's motion to appoint counsel and expedite decision, 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