UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-6442
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
CHARLES HENRY SMITH,
Defendant – Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham. James A. Beaty, Jr.,
Chief District Judge. (1:06-cr-00133-JAB-1; 1:09-cv-00345-JAB-
PTS)
Submitted: January 5, 2011 Decided: February 1, 2011
Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Charles Henry Smith, Appellant Pro Se. Paul Alexander Weinman,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Winston-Salem, North
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Charles Henry Smith seeks to appeal the district
court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West
Supp. 2010) motion. The order is not appealable unless a
circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability.
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (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 Smith has not made the requisite showing.
Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss
the appeal. The motions for appointment of counsel and to file
a formal brief are denied. We dispense with oral argument
because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented
2
in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
DISMISSED
3