US v. Corey Joyner, No. 10-7158 (4th Cir. 2010)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-7158 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. COREY LEVON JOYNER, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Elizabeth City. James C. Fox, Senior District Judge. (2:07-cr-00016-F-1; 2:08-cv-00034-F) Submitted: November 30, 2010 Decided: December 7, 2010 Before WILKINSON, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed in part; dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion. Corey Levon Joyner, Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer P. May-Parker, Rudolf A. Renfer, Jr., Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Corey Levon Joyner seeks to appeal the district court s order denying relief on his motions filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2010), and 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) (2006). The district court s denial of Joyner s § 2255 motion is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. certificate of 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). appealability will not issue absent A a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). relief on the demonstrating district debatable merits, that court s or a When the district court denies prisoner reasonable assessment wrong. Slack satisfies jurists this would of the v. McDaniel, standard find that U.S. the claims constitutional 529 by is 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 the 484-85. conclude that We have Joyner independently has not made reviewed the record requisite and showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the portion of the appeal denying § 2255 relief. 2 Turning § 3582(c) to motion, we reversible error. the district have court s reviewed the denial record of and v. find no Accordingly, we affirm this portion of the order for the reasons stated by the district court. States Joyner s Joyner, Nos. (E.D.N.C. Aug. 4, 2010). 2:07-cr-00016-F-1; United 2:08-cv-00034-F We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED IN PART; DISMISSED IN PART 3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.