Court Opinion

ID: 622293
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2012-02-06 20:22:19+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:51:00.116639
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 11-7137

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff - Appellee,

          v.

TROY DALE GOSSETT,

                Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Anderson.     Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (8:05-cr-00403-HMH-1; 8:11-cv-70090-HMH)

Submitted:   January 26, 2012             Decided:   February 6, 2012

Before GREGORY, AGEE, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Troy Dale Gossett, Appellant Pro Se.       Alan Lance Crick,
Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina,
for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Troy Dale Gossett seeks to appeal the district court’s

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

2011) 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) (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 Gossett 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

contentions        are     adequately        presented           in     the     materials

                                             2
before   the   court   and   argument   would   not   aid   the   decisional

process.

                                                                   DISMISSED

                                    3