Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-06267/USCOURTS-ca4-15-06267-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Decardio Lamont Glisson
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6267

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

DECARDIO LAMONT GLISSON,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Senior 

District Judge. (3:08-cr-00405-JFA-1; 3:13-cv-02716-JFA)

Submitted: June 12, 2015 Decided: June 22, 2015

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

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Decardio Lamont Glisson, Appellant Pro Se. John David Rowell, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-6267 Doc: 6 Filed: 06/22/2015 Pg: 1 of 3
PER CURIAM:

Decardio Lamont Glisson seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order dismissing as untimely 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 

Glisson 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

2

Appeal: 15-6267 Doc: 6 Filed: 06/22/2015 Pg: 2 of 3
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

3

Appeal: 15-6267 Doc: 6 Filed: 06/22/2015 Pg: 3 of 3