UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-6549
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
SHAWN SADLER, a/k/a Tangulifu M. Barber, a/k/a Carlos Watts,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 12-6169
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
SHAWN SADLER, a/k/a Tangulifu M. Barber, a/k/a Carlos Watts,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the District
of South Carolina, at Columbia. Cameron McGowan Currie,
District Judge. (3:04-cr-00330-CMC-5; 3:10-cv-70219-CMC)
Submitted: June 21, 2012 Decided: July 9, 2012
Before WILKINSON, KING, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.
Shawn Sadler, Appellant Pro Se. William Kenneth Witherspoon,
Assistant United States Attorney, Nancy Chastain Wicker, OFFICE
OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
In our initial consideration of Case No. 11-6549, we
granted a certificate of appealability regarding whether
Sadler’s appellate counsel failed to advise him of his right to
petition the Supreme Court for review after the conclusion of
his direct appeal in this court. We reserved consideration of
Sadler’s remaining claims. On remand, the district court made
additional findings of fact and determined that counsel did so
advise Sadler. It thus denied Sadler relief under 28 U.S.C.A.
§ 2255 (West Supp. 2012). Sadler subsequently filed a notice of
appeal of the district court’s findings of fact, which was
docketed as Case No. 12-6169. We consider the appeals in this
consolidated proceeding and affirm the district court’s denial
of relief as to Sadler’s claim of ineffectiveness regarding his
right to petition the Supreme Court for review. We deny a
certificate of appealability on his remaining claims and dismiss
the appeals.
This court reviews de novo a district court’s legal
conclusions in denying a § 2255 motion. United States v.
Linder, 552 F.3d 391, 395 (4th Cir. 2009). Finding no error in
the district court’s findings of fact or legal conclusions, we
affirm as to Sadler’s claim that he was not notified of his
right to file a petition for certiorari in the Supreme Court.
As for Sadler’s remaining claims, 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)
(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 Sadler has not made the requisite showing.
Accordingly, we affirm the denial of relief in Case
No. 11-6549 as to counsel’s ineffectiveness. We further deny a
certificate of appealability as to all other claims and dismiss
the remainder of Sadler’s appeals. We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
4
presented in the materials before the court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED IN PART AND
DISMISSED IN PART
5