US v. Donnie Sheffield, No. 12-7844 (4th Cir. 2013)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-7844 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. DONNIE WAYNE SHEFFIELD, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge. (4:07-cr-00769-TLW-1; 4:11-cv-03247-TLW) Submitted: January 16, 2013 Decided: March 22, 2013 Before DUNCAN, DAVIS, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Donnie Wayne Sheffield, Appellant Pro Se. Carrie Fisher Sherard, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Donnie Wayne Sheffield seeks to appeal the district court s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 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) (2006). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. (2006). 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this jurists would reasonable standard find by that demonstrating the district that 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). denies relief demonstrate both on procedural that the When the district court grounds, dispositive the prisoner procedural ruling must 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 Sheffield has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny the motion for the production of a transcript at the government s expense, deny the motion to expand the record and for judicial notice, deny a certificate of appealability, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the 2 facts and materials legal before contentions are adequately this and argument court presented would not in the aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 3