Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-16-06748/USCOURTS-ca4-16-06748-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Michael F. Harris
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6748

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

MICHAEL F. HARRIS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District 

Judge. (3:12-cr-00170-HEH-RCY-1; 3:15-cv-00325-HEH)

Submitted: November 22, 2016 Decided: November 29, 2016

Before DIAZ and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit 

Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael F. Harris, Appellant Pro Se. Jessica D. Aber, OFFICE OF 

THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Michael Ronald Gill, Gurney Wingate 

Grant, II, Laura Colombell Marshall, Assistant United States 

Attorneys, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-6748 Doc: 11 Filed: 11/29/2016 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Michael F. Harris seeks to appeal the district court’s order 

denying relief on 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 

Harris has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny 

a certificate of appealability, deny Harris’ motion for 

resettlement, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 

Appeal: 16-6748 Doc: 11 Filed: 11/29/2016 Pg: 2 of 3
3

presented in the materials before this court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 16-6748 Doc: 11 Filed: 11/29/2016 Pg: 3 of 3