US v. Charles Burns, No. 13-6080 (4th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-6080 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. CHARLES R. BURNS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney, District Judge. (3:09-cr-00234-FDW-2; 3:12-cv-00388-FDW) Submitted: May 30, 2013 Decided: June 4, 2013 Before SHEDD, DIAZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion. Charles R. Burns, Appellant Pro Se. William A. Brafford, Assistant United States Attorney, Robert John Gleason, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Charles R. Burns seeks to appeal the district court s order granting in part and denying in part his motions for reduction of sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006), and denying relief motion. We have reviewed the district court s partial denial of Burns § on his 3582(c)(2) 28 U.S.C.A. motion and § 2255 find no (West Supp. reversible 2012) error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court s order in part for the reasons stated by the district court. Burns, Nos. 3:09-cr-00234-FDW-2; United States v. 3:12-cv-00388-FDW (W.D.N.C. Jan. 2, 2013). The district court s order denying relief on Burns § 2255 motion is not judge issues a certificate § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006). issue absent a appealable of a circuit justice appealability. 28 or U.S.C. A certificate of appealability will not substantial constitutional right. unless 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); 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 2 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 Burns has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal in part. legal before We dispense with oral argument because the facts and contentions this court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials decisional process. AFFIRMED IN PART; DISMISSED IN PART 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.
