Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-14-07564/USCOURTS-ca4-14-07564-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Terrance Smith
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-7564

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

TERRANCE SMITH, a/k/a Ty,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District 

Judge. (2:02-cr-00217-RAJ-5; 2:14-cv-00384-RAJ-LRL)

Submitted: February 25, 2015 Decided: March 2, 2015

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Terrance Smith, Appellant Pro Se. Benjamin L. Hatch, Assistant 

United States Attorney, Joseph Kosky, OFFICE OF THE UNITED 

STATES ATTORNEY, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-7564 Doc: 7 Filed: 03/02/2015 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Terrance Smith seeks to appeal the district court’s order 

dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion as successive. 

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

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

a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

Appeal: 14-7564 Doc: 7 Filed: 03/02/2015 Pg: 2 of 3
3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 14-7564 Doc: 7 Filed: 03/02/2015 Pg: 3 of 3