Court Opinion

ID: 617246
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2011-11-16 20:23:40+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:50:40.555745
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 11-6865

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff - Appellee,

          v.

JEFF ERIC CHESSER,

                Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia.   Cameron McGowan Currie, District
Judge. (3:07-cr-01392-CMC-1; 3:11-cv-70049-CMC)

Submitted:   November 3, 2011             Decided:   November 16, 2011

Before NIEMEYER, AGEE, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jeff Eric Chesser, Appellant Pro Se.     Jimmie Ewing, Assistant
United States Attorney, Nancy Chastain Wicker, OFFICE OF THE
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Jeff Eric Chesser 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 Chesser 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