United States of America v. Charles Ward, a/k/a Chuck

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-6189
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
CHARLES WARD, a/k/a Chuck,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. John Preston Bailey,
Chief District Judge. (3:09-cr-00032-JPB-JES-1; 3:11-cv-00042-
JPB-JES)
Submitted: August 22, 2012 Decided: August 24, 2012
Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and Diaz, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Charles Ward, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Oliver Mucklow,
Assistant United States Attorney, Martinsburg, West Virginia,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Charles Ward seeks to appeal the district court’s
order adopting, in part, the recommendations of the magistrate
judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.
2012) motion, as well as its order denying him a certificate of
appealability. The district court’s dismissal 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 Ward has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we
deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We

-- 2 of 3 --

3
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 --