United States of America v. Robert Lee Mcqueen, a/k/a Preacher

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-6415
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ROBERT LEE MCQUEEN, a/k/a Preacher,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior
District Judge. (5:09-cr-00253-F-1; 5:12-cv-00693-F)
Submitted: August 30, 2016 Decided: September 8, 2016
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, MOTZ, Circuit Judge, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Robert Lee McQueen, Appellant Pro Se. Kristine L. Fritz, Tobin
Webb Lathan, Seth Morgan Wood, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY, Rudolf A. Renfer, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney,
Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Robert Lee McQueen 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
McQueen has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny
a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We deny
McQueen’s motions for a copy of the transcript of the evidentiary
hearing and for an emergency medical procedure, both at the
Government’s expense, and to amend his petition for a certificate
of appealability. We dispense with oral argument because the facts

-- 2 of 3 --

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

-- 3 of 3 --