Court Opinion

ID: 3185235
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2016-03-14 19:06:20.517441+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:23:10.305801
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 15-7518

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                 Plaintiff – Appellee,

          v.

CHRISTOPHER HANNIGAN,

                 Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Dever, III,
Chief District Judge. (7:09-cr-00133-D-1; 7:14-cv-00122-D)

Submitted:   February 17, 2016            Decided:   March 14, 2016

Before NIEMEYER, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Christopher Hannigan, Appellant Pro Se. Joe Exum, Jr., Stephen
Aubrey West, Assistant United States Attorneys, Seth Morgan
Wood, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North
Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       Christopher Hannigan seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion as untimely.

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

Hannigan 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