Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-07821/USCOURTS-ca4-15-07821-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Treadway Levon Manning
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7821

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

TREADWAY LEVON MANNING, JR.,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Florence. Cameron McGowan Currie, Senior

District Judge. (4:97-cr-00323-CMC-1; 4:15-cv-04354-CMC)

Submitted: February 23, 2016 Decided: February 26, 2016

Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Treadway Levon Manning, Appellant Pro Se. Alfred William Walker 

Bethea, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South 

Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-7821 Doc: 11 Filed: 02/26/2016 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Treadway Levon Manning, Jr., seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order dismissing as successive 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 

Manning has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we 

deny Manning’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: 15-7821 Doc: 11 Filed: 02/26/2016 Pg: 2 of 3
3

materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 15-7821 Doc: 11 Filed: 02/26/2016 Pg: 3 of 3