UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-6607
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
FRANKIE CORNELL ELLIS, JR., a/k/a Nitty,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Greenville. W. Earl Britt,
Senior District Judge. (4:07-cr-00026-BR-1; 4:12-cv-00165-BR;
5:07-cr-00060-BR-1; 5:12-cv-00488-BR)
Submitted: August 22, 2013 Decided: August 28, 2013
Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jennifer Haynes Rose, LAW OFFICE OF JENNIFER HAYNES ROSE, Cary,
North Carolina, for Appellant. John Howarth Bennett, OFFICE OF
THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville, North Carolina; Kimberly
Ann Moore, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Frankie Cornell Ellis, Jr., seeks to appeal the
district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255
(West Supp. 2013) 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 Ellis 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
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3