UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-6213
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
LATCHMIE NARAYAN TOOLASPRASHAD,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Fayetteville. Terrence W. Boyle,
District Judge. (3:85-cr-00045-BO-1)
Submitted: May 19, 2011 Decided: May 24, 2011
Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and AGEE and KEENAN, Circuit
Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Latchmie Narayan Toolasprashad, Appellant Pro Se. William Ellis
Boyle, Joshua Bryan Royster, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Latchmie Narayan Toolasprashad seeks to appeal the
district court’s order denying relief on his motion seeking his
direct appeal rights which the court properly construed as a 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 Toolasprashad has not made the requisite showing.
Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss
the appeal. We grant Toolasprashad’s motion to seal two
2
exhibits to his informal brief. We deny his motions to recuse
and for appointment of counsel. 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
3