United States v. Ivan Copeland

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6196

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

IVAN ALEXANDER COPELAND, a/k/a Bert,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Robert G. Doumar, Senior
District Judge. (2:13-cr-00091-RGD-DEM-1; 2:14-cv-00539-RGD)

Submitted: August 20, 2015 Decided: August 24, 2015

Before DUNCAN, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ivan Alexander Copeland, Appellant Pro Se. Benjamin L. Hatch,
Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

Ivan Alexander Copeland seeks to appeal the district

court’s order denying relief on 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) (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).

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

Copeland has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we

deny his motion for a certificate of appealability and dismiss

the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts

and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials

2
before this Court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

DISMISSED