US v. Donald Postell, No. 12-7606 (4th Cir. 2013)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-7606 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. DONALD LAMONT POSTELL, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney, District Judge. (3:88-cr-00136-FDW-1; 3:12-cv-00576-FDW) Submitted: February 26, 2013 Decided: February 28, 2013 Before MOTZ, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Donald Lamont Postell, Appellant Pro Se. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Donald Lamont Postell, a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court s order dismissing his petition for writ of error coram nobis as an unauthorized successive motion under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2012). The order is not appealable judge unless a circuit certificate of appealability. A certificate of justice or issues a 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006). appealability will not issue absent a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). relief on the demonstrating district merits, that court s debatable or a When the district court denies prisoner reasonable assessment wrong. Slack satisfies jurists this would of the v. McDaniel, standard find U.S. that 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 claim of the denial of a constitutional right. a debatable Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Postell has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument 2 because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 3