US v. Sylvester Norville, No. 13-7491 (4th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-7491 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. SYLVESTER NORVILLE, a/k/a Dick, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Greenville. James C. Dever, III, Chief District Judge. (4:10-cr-00087-D-1; 4:12-cv-00076-D) Submitted: March 28, 2014 Decided: April 3, 2014 Before KING, DUNCAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Sylvester Norville, Appellant Pro Se. Shailika K. Shah, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Sylvester Norville U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). issue absent a of § 2255 appealability. 28 (2012) U.S.C. A certificate of appealability will not substantial constitutional right. 28 district The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or certificate his the motion. a on appeal order issues relief to court s judge denying seeks showing of the denial 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). 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); accord 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 a debatable claim of the right. denial of a constitutional Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Norville 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
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.
