From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. White

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
Jul 30, 2013
536 F. App'x 339 (4th Cir. 2013)

Opinion

No. 13-6674

07-30-2013

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. WILLIAM A. WHITE, Defendant - Appellant.

William A. White, Appellant Pro Se. Cindy K. Chung, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C.; C. Patrick Hogeboom, III, Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.


UNPUBLISHED

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, Senior District Judge. (7:08-cr-00054-JCT-1; 7:12-cv-80506-JCT; 7:13-cv-80554-JCT) Before GREGORY, DAVIS, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. William A. White, Appellant Pro Se. Cindy K. Chung, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C.; C. Patrick Hogeboom, III, Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:

William A. White seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2013) 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) (2006). 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) (2006). 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 White 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. White

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
Jul 30, 2013
536 F. App'x 339 (4th Cir. 2013)
Case details for

United States v. White

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. WILLIAM A. WHITE…

Court:UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

Date published: Jul 30, 2013

Citations

536 F. App'x 339 (4th Cir. 2013)

Citing Cases

Holman v. United States

However, "the Supreme Court has held that there is no constitutional right to counsel for a discretionary…