Court Opinion

ID: 2810574
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-06-22 19:01:26.684581+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:15:07.132659
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
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
contentions   are   adequately   presented   in   the   materials   before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

                                                               DISMISSED

                                   3