US v. Dwayne Deleston, No. 12-8000 (4th Cir. 2013)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-8000 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. DWAYNE CURTIS DELESTON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge. (2:99-cr-00751-DCN-6; 2:12-cv-01488-DCN) Submitted: March 28, 2013 Decided: April 2, 2013 Before NIEMEYER, KING, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Dwayne Curtis Deleston, Appellant Pro Se. Peter Thomas Phillips, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Dwayne Curtis Deleston seeks to appeal the district court s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2012) appealable motion unless and a related circuit certificate of appealability. A certificate of motions. justice The or order judge is issues not 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 Deleston 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