From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. McCall

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
Jun 10, 2013
527 F. App'x 262 (4th Cir. 2013)

Opinion

No. 13-6044

06-10-2013

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. HOWARD EDWARD MCCALL, Defendant - Appellant.

Howard Edward McCall, Appellant Pro Se. Kimlani M. Ford, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina; Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.


UNPUBLISHED

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney, Chief District Judge. (3:05-cr-00104-FDW-DSC-16; 3:12-cv-00792-FDW) Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Howard Edward McCall, Appellant Pro Se. Kimlani M. Ford, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina; Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:

Howard Edward McCall seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 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) (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 McCall 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. McCall

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
Jun 10, 2013
527 F. App'x 262 (4th Cir. 2013)
Case details for

United States v. McCall

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. HOWARD EDWARD MCCALL…

Court:UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

Date published: Jun 10, 2013

Citations

527 F. App'x 262 (4th Cir. 2013)

Citing Cases

McCall v. United States

Petitioner moved for reconsideration, which the Court denied on December 27, 2012. The Fourth Circuit Court…