Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-06884/USCOURTS-ca4-15-06884-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Travis McKinnley Friend
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6884

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

TRAVIS MCKINNLEY FRIEND,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior

District Judge. (3:99-cr-00201-REP-2; 3:15-cv-00267-REP)

Submitted: October 7, 2015 Decided: October 19, 2015

Before NIEMEYER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Travis McKinnley Friend, Appellant Pro Se. Brian R. Hood, 

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-6884 Doc: 11 Filed: 10/19/2015 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Travis McKinnley Friend seeks to appeal the district

court’s order dismissing his successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) 

motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or 

judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012); Jones v. Braxton, 392 F.3d 683, 688 (4th 

Cir. 2004). 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 

Friend 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: 15-6884 Doc: 11 Filed: 10/19/2015 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: 15-6884 Doc: 11 Filed: 10/19/2015 Pg: 3 of 3