Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-07213/USCOURTS-ca4-15-07213-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Timothy Lamont McMillan
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7213

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

TIMOTHY LAMONT MCMILLAN,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. Terrence W. Boyle, 

District Judge. (7:10-cr-00114-BO-1; 7:15-cv-00040-BO)

Submitted: November 19, 2015 Decided: November 24, 2015

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Timothy Lamont McMillan, Appellant Pro Se. Ethan A. Ontjes, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Seth Morgan Wood, OFFICE OF 

THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-7213 Doc: 16 Filed: 11/24/2015 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Timothy Lamont McMillan seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order dismissing as untimely his motion filed under 28 

U.S.C. § 2255 (2012), and the order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 

59(e) motion. These orders are 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 

McMillan has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we 

deny McMillan’s motion for a certificate of appealability and 

dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the 

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 

Appeal: 15-7213 Doc: 16 Filed: 11/24/2015 Pg: 2 of 3
3

materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 15-7213 Doc: 16 Filed: 11/24/2015 Pg: 3 of 3