United States of America v. Sylvester Norville, a/k/a Dick

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-7491
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
SYLVESTER NORVILLE, a/k/a Dick,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Greenville. James C. Dever, III,
Chief District Judge. (4:10-cr-00087-D-1; 4:12-cv-00076-D)
Submitted: March 28, 2014 Decided: April 3, 2014
Before KING, DUNCAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Sylvester Norville, Appellant Pro Se. Shailika K. Shah, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Sylvester Norville 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); accord 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 Norville has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly,
we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

-- 2 of 3 --

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

-- 3 of 3 --