US v. Denard Carrington, No. 14-7055 (4th Cir. 2014)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-7055 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. DENARD EDWARD CARRINGTON, a/k/a Bird, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, Senior District Judge. (3:09-cr-00160-JRS-1; 3:11-cv-00670-JRS) Submitted: November 20, 2014 Decided: November 25, 2014 Before KING and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Denard Edward Carrington, Appellant Pro Se. Angela MastandreaMiller, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Denard Edward Carrington seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion and granting in part and denying in part his subsequent Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion to alter or amend judgment. orders are not issues certificate a appealable § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). issue absent “a unless of circuit appealability. justice See or 28 judge U.S.C. A certificate of appealability will not substantial constitutional right.” a The 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 petition 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 Carrington has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Carrington’s motion for a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 2 We dispense with oral argument 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