Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-07652/USCOURTS-ca4-15-07652-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
John Robert Armstrong
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7652

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

JOHN ROBERT ARMSTRONG,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Charleston. Patrick Michael Duffy, Senior 

District Judge. (2:10-cr-00276-PMD-1; 2:14-cv-02423-PMD)

Submitted: March 30, 2016 Decided: June 29, 2016

Before KEENAN and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John Robert Armstrong, Appellant Pro Se. Sean Kittrell, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, 

for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-7652 Doc: 8 Filed: 06/29/2016 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

John Robert Armstrong 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 

Armstrong 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: 15-7652 Doc: 8 Filed: 06/29/2016 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: 15-7652 Doc: 8 Filed: 06/29/2016 Pg: 3 of 3