UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-6925
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
DERRICK DONNELL MABRY, a/k/a Mayberry,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever III,
Chief District Judge. (5:12-cr-00275-D-1; 5:15-cv-00578-D)
Submitted: December 8, 2016 Decided: December 20, 2016
Before NIEMEYER and KING, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed in part; affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.
Derrick Donnell Mabry, Appellant Pro Se. Eric David Goulian,
Seth Morgan Wood, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Patrick
Benton Weede, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh,
North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Derrick Donnell Mabry seeks to appeal the district court’s
order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion and
his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012) motion. After a review of the
record, we dismiss in part and affirm in part.
Regarding his § 2255 motion, this portion of 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
Mabry has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny
2
a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal of the
denial of Mabry’s § 2255 motion.
Turning to Mabry’s § 3582(c)(2) motion, we conclude that
the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the
motion. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the
district court. United States v. Mabry, No. 5:12-cr-00275-D-1
(E.D.N.C. June 28, 2016). 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