UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-6080
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
CHARLES R. BURNS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney,
District Judge. (3:09-cr-00234-FDW-2; 3:12-cv-00388-FDW)
Submitted: May 30, 2013 Decided: June 4, 2013
Before SHEDD, DIAZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.
Charles R. Burns, Appellant Pro Se. William A. Brafford,
Assistant United States Attorney, Robert John Gleason, OFFICE OF
THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Charles R. Burns seeks to appeal the district court’s
order granting in part and denying in part his motions for
reduction of sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006), and
denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2012)
motion. We have reviewed the district court’s partial denial of
Burns’ § 3582(c)(2) motion and find no reversible error.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order in part for
the reasons stated by the district court. United States v.
Burns, Nos. 3:09-cr-00234-FDW-2; 3:12-cv-00388-FDW (W.D.N.C.
Jan. 2, 2013).
The district court’s order denying relief on Burns’
§ 2255 motion 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
2
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 Burns has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we
deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal in
part. 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.
AFFIRMED IN PART;
DISMISSED IN PART
3