Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-06356/USCOURTS-ca4-15-06356-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Darrell Anthony Cunningham
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6356

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

DARRELL ANTHONY CUNNINGHAM, a/k/a DC,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Greenville. Timothy M. Cain, District Judge. 

(6:13-cr-00013-TMC-2; 6:14-cv-03539-TMC)

Submitted: July 15, 2015 Decided: July 28, 2015

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Darrell Anthony Cunningham, Appellant Pro Se. Maxwell B. 

Cauthen, III, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, 

South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-6356 Doc: 9 Filed: 07/28/2015 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Darrell Anthony Cunningham 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 

Cunningham has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we 

deny Cunningham’s motion for a certificate of appealability and 

dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the 

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 

Appeal: 15-6356 Doc: 9 Filed: 07/28/2015 Pg: 2 of 3
3

materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 15-6356 Doc: 9 Filed: 07/28/2015 Pg: 3 of 3