Skip to main content

UNITED STATES v. PARKER (2018)

Reset A A Font size: Print

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Lamont Delmar PARKER, a/k/a Monster, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-7041

Decided: January 30, 2018

Before KING and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Lamont Delmar Parker, Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer P. May-Parker, Rudolf A. Renfer, Jr., Seth Morgan Wood, Assistant United States Attorneys, Joshua Bryan Royster, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Lamont Delmar Parker seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his authorized, successive 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, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (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, 120 S.Ct. 1595.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Parker has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Parker's motion for a certificate of appealability, deny the pending motion to seal this court's docket and all materials filed in this court, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

PER CURIAM:

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Copied to clipboard