Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-06089/USCOURTS-ca4-15-06089-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Brent Gardner
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6089

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

BRENT GARDNER,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Orangeburg. Margaret B. Seymour, Senior 

District Judge. (5:05-cr-01156-MBS-1; 5:12-cv-03312-MBS)

Submitted: May 19, 2015 Decided: May 21, 2015

Before NIEMEYER and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Brent Gardner, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Frank Daley, Jr., 

Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-6089 Doc: 8 Filed: 05/21/2015 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Brent Gardner seeks to appeal the district court’s order 

dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The 

order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues 

a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B)

(2012). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a 

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). 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); see 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 denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. 

at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that

Gardner has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we 

deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

Appeal: 15-6089 Doc: 8 Filed: 05/21/2015 Pg: 2 of 3
3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 15-6089 Doc: 8 Filed: 05/21/2015 Pg: 3 of 3