US v. Carlos Scott, No. 11-6512 (4th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-6512 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. CARLOS DEAN SCOTT, a/k/a Bink, a/k/a Binky, Defendant Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Bluefield. David A. Faber, Senior District Judge. (1:02-cr-00241-1; 1:08-cv-00047) Submitted: June 16, 2011 Before NIEMEYER and Senior Circuit Judge. GREGORY, Decided: Circuit Judges, June 21, 2011 and HAMILTON, Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Carlos Dean Scott, Appellant Pro Se. John Lanier File, Assistant United States Attorney, Beckley, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Carlos Dean Scott seeks to appeal the district court s order adopting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues on a his absent a constitutional U.S.C.A. certificate § 2253(c)(1) (2006). issue 28 of § 2255 (West Supp. appealability. 28 2010) U.S.C. A certificate of appealability will not substantial right. 28 showing U.S.C. of the denial § 2253(c)(2). of When a 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 Cockrell, (2000); (2003). see Miller-El v. 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 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. 529 U.S. at 484-85. and conclude that Slack, We have independently reviewed the record Scott 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 contentions are adequately presented in the materials 2 before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 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.
