US v. Mikal Mix, No. 13-6859 (4th Cir. 2013)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-6859 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. MIKAL MUSTAFA MIX, a/k/a Mikail Mix, a/k/a Man Man, Stash, a/k/a Dirty Boy, a/k/a Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Arenda L. Wright Allen, District Judge. (2:08-cr-00022-AWA-JEB-2 2:11-cv-00566-AWA) Submitted: December 17, 2013 Decided: December 19, 2013 Before KING, GREGORY, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Mikal Mustafa Mix, Appellant Pro Se. Sherrie Scott Capotosto, William David Muhr, Assistant United States Attorneys, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Mikal Mustafa Mix seeks to appeal the district court s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2013) motion. judge The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or issues a certificate § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006). issue absent a of 28 U.S.C. A certificate of appealability will not substantial constitutional right. appealability. 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 Cockrell, (2000); (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 Mix has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. dispense with oral argument because 2 the facts and We legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 3