From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Parham

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
Dec 19, 2011
458 F. App'x 279 (4th Cir. 2011)

Opinion

No. 11-6848

12-19-2011

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. MARCUS DWAYNE PARHAM, Defendant - Appellant.

Marcus Dwayne Parham, Appellant Pro Se. Kelli Hamby Ferry, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.


UNPUBLISHED


Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L.

Voorhees, District Judge. (5:08-cr-00051-RLV-DCK-2; 5:11-cv-

00063-RLV)


Before DUNCAN, DAVIS, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Marcus Dwayne Parham, Appellant Pro Se. Kelli Hamby Ferry,


Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Marcus Dwayne Parham seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2011) 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) (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 Parham 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 adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED


Summaries of

United States v. Parham

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
Dec 19, 2011
458 F. App'x 279 (4th Cir. 2011)
Case details for

United States v. Parham

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. MARCUS DWAYNE PARHAM…

Court:UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

Date published: Dec 19, 2011

Citations

458 F. App'x 279 (4th Cir. 2011)

Citing Cases

Parham v. United States

(5:11-CV-00063-RLV, Doc. No. 2). Petitioner filed an appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the…

Parham v. Meeks

Id. The Fourth Circuit denied Petitioner's appeal of the District Court's dismissal in an unpublished opinion…