UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-6342
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
WILLIAM RUSSELL ABBOTT, a/k/a Rusty Abbott, a/k/a
panthers_one@yahoo.com, a/k/a bigruss912@hotmail.com
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Robert G. Doumar, Senior
District Judge. (2:07-cr-00214-JEB-1; 2:12-cv-00026-RGD)
Submitted: July 19, 2012 Decided: July 23, 2012
Before DUNCAN, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
William R. Abbott, Appellant Pro Se. Melissa Elaine O’Boyle,
Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
William Russell Abbott seeks to appeal the district
court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.
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 Abbott 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
2
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3