United Statesv.Raynor

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUITOct 19, 2017
No. 17-6738 (4th Cir. Oct. 19, 2017)

No. 17-6738

10-19-2017

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. DELTON LAMONT RAYNOR, Defendant - Appellant.

Delton Lamont Raynor, Appellant Pro Se. Andrew Lamont Creighton, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Newport News, Virginia, Stephen Westley Haynie, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.


UNPUBLISHED

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (2:11-cr-00159-RAJ-DEM-1; 2:16-cv-00400-RGD) Before FLOYD and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Delton Lamont Raynor, Appellant Pro Se. Andrew Lamont Creighton, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Newport News, Virginia, Stephen Westley Haynie, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:

Delton Lamont Raynor 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 Raynor has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We deny Raynor's motion to remand and 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