UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-6669
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
EVERETTE ATKINSON, a/k/a Rick,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan,
District Judge. (5:05-cr-00009-FL-1; 5:12-cv-00283-FL)
Submitted: January 20, 2015 Decided: February 3, 2015
Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Everette Atkinson, Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer P. May-Parker,
Assistant United States Attorney, Kristine L. Fritz, Banumathi
Rangarajan, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Everette Atkinson seeks to appeal the district court’s
order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and
dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) 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 Atkinson has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly,
we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.
We further deny Atkinson’s motion to place this appeal in
abeyance for No. 13-7841, United States v. Foote. We dispense
2
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
3