Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-07488/USCOURTS-ca4-15-07488-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Brian S. Grimmond
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7488

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

BRIAN S. GRIMMOND,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

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

District Judge. (3:93-cr-70058-GEC-2; 3:14-cv-80715-GEC-RSB)

Submitted: April 19, 2016 Decided: April 21, 2016

Before AGEE, DIAZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Andrea Lantz Harris, Assistant Federal Public Defender, 

Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellant. Jean Barrett Hudson, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Charlottesville, Virginia, 

Ronald Andrew Bassford, Assistant United States Attorney, 

Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-7488 Doc: 21 Filed: 04/21/2016 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Brian S. Grimmond seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and 

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. 

Grimmond concedes that he is not entitled to the issuance

of a certificate of appealability. We have independently 

reviewed the record and likewise conclude that Grimmond has not 

made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate 

of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral 

Appeal: 15-7488 Doc: 21 Filed: 04/21/2016 Pg: 2 of 3
3

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

Appeal: 15-7488 Doc: 21 Filed: 04/21/2016 Pg: 3 of 3