United States of America v. Paul Horner Emory, Iii

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-7860
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
PAUL HORNER EMORY, III,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior
District Judge. (7:03-cr-00014-BR-1)
Submitted: June 1, 2010 Decided: June 4, 2010
Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Paul Horner Emory, III, Appellant Pro Se. Steve R. Matheny,
Thomas B. Murphy, Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh,
North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Paul Horner Emory, III, seeks to appeal the district
court’s order denying relief on his “Motion for Relief from
Constitutional Violations,” which the district court construed
as a motion under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2009), and
denied on the ground that Emory failed to obtain authorization
to file it. Emory also seeks to appeal the district court’s
order denying reconsideration. The orders are not appealable
unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of
appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (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
Emory has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny

-- 2 of 3 --

3
a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We deny
as moot Emory’s motion for a limited remand and dispense with
oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED

-- 3 of 3 --