Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-07518/USCOURTS-ca4-15-07518-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Christopher Hannigan
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7518

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

CHRISTOPHER HANNIGAN,

 Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Dever, III, 

Chief District Judge. (7:09-cr-00133-D-1; 7:14-cv-00122-D)

Submitted: February 17, 2016 Decided: March 14, 2016

Before NIEMEYER, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Christopher Hannigan, Appellant Pro Se. Joe Exum, Jr., Stephen 

Aubrey West, Assistant United States Attorneys, Seth Morgan 

Wood, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North 

Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-7518 Doc: 9 Filed: 03/14/2016 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Christopher Hannigan seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion as untimely. 

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 

Hannigan 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: 15-7518 Doc: 9 Filed: 03/14/2016 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: 15-7518 Doc: 9 Filed: 03/14/2016 Pg: 3 of 3