UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-7299
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
DARRELL EUGENE BANKS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Martin K. Reidinger,
District Judge. (1:09-cr-00052-MR-1; 1:12-cv-00166-MR)
Submitted: November 18, 2014 Decided: November 21, 2014
Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed in part, dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.
Darrell Eugene Banks, Appellant Pro Se. Amy Elizabeth Ray,
Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Darrell Eugene Banks appeals the district court’s
August 13, 2014 order denying his ex parte motion. Insofar as
Banks challenges the district court’s denial of relief under
Fed. R. Crim. P. 36, we have reviewed the record and find no
reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm this portion of the
order for the reasons stated by the district court. United
States v. Banks, Nos. 1:09-cr-00052-MR-1 (W.D.N.C. filed Aug.
13, 2014 & entered Aug. 14, 2014).
Insofar as Banks challenges the court’s construction
of his motion as an unauthorized, successive motion under 28
U.S.C. § 2255 (2012), this portion of the district court’s 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). We have independently reviewed
the record and conclude that Banks has not made the requisite
showing. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003)
(describing required showing); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473,
484-85 (2000) (same). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of
appealability and dismiss this portion of 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.
AFFIRMED IN PART;
DISMISSED IN PART
3