Court Opinion

ID: 873142
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-05-30 00:00:28.730929+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:19:11.693271
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                             No. 13-6134

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                 Plaintiff - Appellee,

          v.

SAINT GRIFFIN,

                 Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.    James C. Fox, Senior
District Judge. (5:05-cr-00281-F-1; 5:12-cv-00380-F)

Submitted:   May 23, 2013                       Decided:   May 29, 2013

Before MOTZ and     AGEE,   Circuit   Judges,   and   HAMILTON,   Senior
Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Saint Griffin, Appellant Pro Se.      Jennifer P. May-Parker,
Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

            Saint        Griffin    seeks   to    appeal    the   district       court’s

order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.

2012) motion and its subsequent order denying reconsideration.

The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge

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

§ 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006).             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) (2006).               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 Griffin 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
contentions   are   adequately   presented   in   the   materials   before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

                                                               DISMISSED

                                   3