Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-07575/USCOURTS-ca4-15-07575-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Travis Nicodemus Grady
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7575

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

TRAVIS NICODEMUS GRADY,

 Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of Virginia, at Harrisonburg. Glen E. Conrad, Chief

District Judge. (5:10-cr-00002-GEC-1; 5:14-cv-80780-GEC-RSB)

Submitted: December 17, 2015 Decided: December 22, 2015

Before DIAZ and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Travis Nicodemus Grady, Appellant Pro Se. Erin Marie Harrigan 

Kulpa, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlottesville, 

Virginia; Jeb Thomas Terrien, Assistant United States Attorney, 

Harrisonburg, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-7575 Doc: 12 Filed: 12/22/2015 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Travis Nicodemus Grady 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 

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

a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma 

pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 

Appeal: 15-7575 Doc: 12 Filed: 12/22/2015 Pg: 2 of 3
3

presented in the materials before this court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 15-7575 Doc: 12 Filed: 12/22/2015 Pg: 3 of 3