Filed: Feb. 26, 2016
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-7768 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. BILLY LEE HIGHSMITH, a/k/a Wild Bill, a/k/a Dollar Bill, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior District Judge. (5:13-cr-00270-BR-1; 5:15-cv-00304-BR) Submitted: February 23, 2016 Decided: February 26, 2016 Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Se
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-7768 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. BILLY LEE HIGHSMITH, a/k/a Wild Bill, a/k/a Dollar Bill, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior District Judge. (5:13-cr-00270-BR-1; 5:15-cv-00304-BR) Submitted: February 23, 2016 Decided: February 26, 2016 Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Sen..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-7768
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
BILLY LEE HIGHSMITH, a/k/a Wild Bill, a/k/a Dollar Bill,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior
District Judge. (5:13-cr-00270-BR-1; 5:15-cv-00304-BR)
Submitted: February 23, 2016 Decided: February 26, 2016
Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Billy Lee Highsmith, Appellant Pro Se. Edward D. Gray,
Assistant United States Attorney, Nathan A. Huff, Seth Morgan
Wood, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Billy Lee Highsmith seeks to appeal the district court’s
order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (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)
(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
Highsmith 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
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3