United States of America v. Warshahennedige Anton Raj Nishantha Fernando

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-6356
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
WARSHAHENNEDIGE ANTON RAJ NISHANTHA FERNANDO,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. N. Carlton Tilley,
Jr., Senior District Judge. (1:07-cr-00038-NCT-1; 1:10-cv-
00192-NCT-JEP; 1:10-cv-00257-NCT-JEP)
Submitted: June 13, 2013 Decided: June 18, 2013
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Warshahennedige Anton Raj Nishantha Fernando, Appellant Pro Se.
Michael A. DeFranco, Angela Hewlett Miller, Assistant United
States Attorneys, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Warshahennedige Anton Raj Nishantha Fernando seeks to
appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation
of the magistrate judge and 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 Fernando has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly,
we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in
forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

-- 2 of 3 --

3
presented in the materials before this court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED

-- 3 of 3 --