United States
v.
Murphy

This case is not covered by Casetext's citator
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUITSep 11, 2018
No. 18-6426 (4th Cir. Sep. 11, 2018)

No. 18-6426

09-11-2018

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. BORIS MURPHY, Defendant - Appellant.

Boris Murphy, Appellant Pro Se.


UNPUBLISHED

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior District Judge. (4:97-cr-00020-BR-2; 4:16-cv-00252-BR) Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Boris Murphy, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:

Boris Murphy seeks to appeal the district court's order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for reconsideration of 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 Murphy 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