United States of America v. Reggie Andre Beckton

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-6700
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
REGGIE ANDRE BECKTON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. W. Earl Britt,
Senior District Judge. (7:11-cr-00061-BR-1; 7:15-cv-00068-BR)
Submitted: September 9, 2015 Decided: September 14, 2015
Before SHEDD, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Reggie Andre Beckton, Appellant Pro Se. G. Norman Acker, III,
Dennis Michael Duffy, Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant United
States Attorneys, S. Katherine Burnette, Tobin Webb Lathan, Seth
Morgan Wood, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh,
North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Reggie Andre Beckton 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
Beckton has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we
deny Beckton’s motions for a certificate of appealability and
dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the
facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the

-- 2 of 3 --

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

-- 3 of 3 --