United States v. Leonard Parker, 4th Cir. (2014)
Uploaded by
Scribd Government DocsUnited States v. Leonard Parker, 4th Cir. (2014)
Uploaded by
Scribd Government DocsUNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-6030
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
LEONARD OBRIEN PARKER, a/k/a Leonard OBrien Parris,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Bryson City.
Martin K.
Reidinger, District Judge.
(2:06-cr-00002-MR-1; 2:13-cv-00010MR)
Submitted:
April 17, 2014
Decided:
April 22, 2014
Before WILKINSON, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Leonard OBrien Parker, Appellant Pro Se.
Amy Elizabeth Ray,
Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Leonard OBrien Parker seeks to appeal the district
courts
orders
dismissing
as
untimely
his
28
U.S.C.
2255
(2012) motion and denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion to
alter or amend that judgment.
unless
circuit
appealability.
justice
or
The orders are not appealable
judge
issues
28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012).
certificate
of
A certificate
of appealability will not issue absent a substantial showing of
the denial of a constitutional right.
(2012).
28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(2)
When the district court denies relief on the merits, a
prisoner
satisfies
this
jurists
would
reasonable
standard
find
by
that
demonstrating
the
district
that
courts
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).
denies
relief
demonstrate
both
on
procedural
that
the
When the district court
grounds,
dispositive
the
prisoner
procedural
ruling
must
is
debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the
denial of a constitutional right.
Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85.
On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised
in the Appellants brief.
See 4th Cir. R. 34(b).
Because
Parkers informal brief does not challenge the basis for the
district
courts
disposition,
Parker
review of the district courts orders.
2
has
forfeited
appellate
Accordingly, we deny a
certificate
dispense
of
with
contentions
are
appealability
oral
argument
adequately
and
dismiss
because
presented
in
the
the
the
appeal.
facts
We
and
legal
materials
before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
