Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-07762/USCOURTS-ca4-15-07762-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Christopher Cunningham
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7762

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

CHRISTOPHER CUNNINGHAM,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, 

District Judge. (1:14-cr-00225-LMB-1; 1:15-cv-01262-LMB)

Submitted: March 31, 2016 Decided: April 11, 2016

Before NIEMEYER, DUNCAN, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Christopher Cunningham, Appellant Pro Se. Chad Golder, OFFICE 

OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-7762 Doc: 10 Filed: 04/11/2016 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Christopher Cunningham seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order dismissing 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 a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in 

forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 

Appeal: 15-7762 Doc: 10 Filed: 04/11/2016 Pg: 2 of 3
3

presented in the materials before this court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 15-7762 Doc: 10 Filed: 04/11/2016 Pg: 3 of 3