US v. Robert Pryor, No. 14-6772 (4th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-6772 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ROBERT DAVID PRYOR, a/k/a Yard Owl, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Cameron McGowan Currie, Senior District Judge. (3:12-cr-00430-CMC-6; 3:13-cv-03070-CMC) Submitted: October 14, 2014 Before NIEMEYER Circuit Judge. and KING, Decided: Circuit Judges, October 22, 2014 and DAVIS, Senior Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert David Pryor, Appellant Pro Se. James Hunter May, Stanley D. Ragsdale, Julius Ness Richardson, Assistant United States Attorneys, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Robert David appeal the 28 U.S.C. § 2255 The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or certificate § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). issue absent a of appealability. 28 (2012) U.S.C. A certificate of appealability will not substantial constitutional right. his district motion. a on to order issues relief seeks court s judge denying Pryor 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 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 Pryor has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Pryor s motion for a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, 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
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.
