United States of America v. Truman Levi Lewis

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-7088
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
TRUMAN LEVI LEWIS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston. Richard M. Gergel, District Judge.
(2:12-cr-00507-RMG-1; 2:16-cv-01308-RMG)
Submitted: March 3, 2017 Decided: March 8, 2017
Before WILKINSON, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Truman Levi Lewis, Appellant Pro Se. Winston David Holliday, Jr.,
Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Truman Levi Lewis seeks to appeal the district court’s orders
denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion and Fed. R.
Civ. P. 59(c) motion. The orders are 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
Lewis 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 contentions are

-- 2 of 3 --

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

-- 3 of 3 --