UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-6744
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
OWEN ODDMAN, a/k/a Owen Odman, a/k/a Charles Llewlyn, a/k/a
Star,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Shelby. Martin K. Reidinger,
District Judge. (4:96-cr-00053-MR-1)
Submitted: October 18, 2016 Decided: October 21, 2016
Before WILKINSON, KING, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed in part; affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.
Owen Oddman, Appellant Pro Se. Jill Westmoreland Rose, United
States Attorney, Elizabeth Margaret Greenough, Adam Christopher
Morris, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North
Carolina; Richard Lee Edwards, Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant
United States Attorneys, Asheville, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Owen Oddman appeals from the district court’s order denying
relief on his motion to correct the record, Fed. R. Crim. P. 36,
which the court construed, in part, as a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012)
motion. To the extent that the district court denied relief on
Oddman’s Rule 36 motion, we affirm for the reasons stated by the
district court. United States v. Oddman, No. 4:96-cr-00053-MR-1
(W.D.N.C. Apr. 5, 2016; Apr. 22, 2016).
To the extent that Oddman seeks to appeal the district
court’s order denying relief on § 2255 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
2
claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S.
at 484-85.
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that
Oddman has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny
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 before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED IN PART;
AFFIRMED IN PART
3