US v. Carl Graham, No. 11-7287 (4th Cir. 2012)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-7287 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. CARL KOTAY GRAHAM, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. James A. Beaty, Jr., Chief District Judge. (1:06-cr-00267-JAB-1; 1:09-cv-00958-JABPTS) Submitted: November 16, 2012 Decided: November 29, 2012 Before NIEMEYER, AGEE, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Carl Kotay Graham, Appellant Pro Se. Lisa Blue Boggs, Angela Hewlett Miller, Assistant United States Attorneys, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Carl Kotay Graham seeks to appeal the district court s order accepting 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 U.S.C.A. certificate § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006). issue 28 a of 2255 (West Supp. appealability. 28 2012) U.S.C. A certificate of appealability will not substantial constitutional right. § showing of the denial 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). of a 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); Cockrell, (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. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Graham has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Graham s motion to appoint counsel, deny a certificate of appealability, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 2 presented in the materials before this 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.