UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-6809
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
LARRY EUGENE MORRISON, a/k/a Craig Winner, a/k/a Silvio
Ducati, a/k/a Cali, a/k/a Gene, a/k/a Jack,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 13-6929
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
LARRY EUGENE MORRISON, a/k/a Craig Winner, a/k/a Silvio
Ducati, a/k/a Cali, a/k/a Gene, a/k/a Jack,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L.
Voorhees, District Judge. (5:06-cr-00044-RLV-CH-1; 5:11-cv-
00132-RLV)
Submitted: September 30, 2013 Decided: October 7, 2013
Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed in part; affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.
Larry Eugene Morrison, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Richard Ascik,
Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina;
Thomas A. O’Malley, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY,
Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
Larry Eugene Morrison seeks to appeal the district
court’s orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West
Supp. 2013) motion, and denying his motion to compel. The order
denying Morrison’s § 2255 motion 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 Morrison has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly,
we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal of
the district court’s order denying habeas relief. Likewise, we
have reviewed the record and Morrison’s claims with regard to
3
the denial of his motion to compel and find no reversible error.
We therefore affirm the district court’s order denying that
motion. We deny Morrison’s motions for bail, to expedite, to
appoint counsel and for a transcript at government expense.
Finally, 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 IN PART;
AFFIRMED IN PART
4