Court Opinion

ID: 3156541
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-11-20 20:00:51.372449+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:02:37.063569
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 15-7086

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff - Appellee,

          v.

BRANDON EMANUEL BUTLER,

                Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence.    Terry L. Wooten, Chief District
Judge. (4:09-cr-00074-TLW-1; 4:14-cv-00112-TLW)

Submitted:   November 17, 2015            Decided:   November 20, 2015

Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Brandon Emanuel Butler, Appellant Pro Se.      Carrie Fisher
Sherard, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South
Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

        Brandon Emanuel Butler seeks to appeal the district court’s

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

filed.     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

Butler has not made the requisite showing.                   Accordingly, we deny

Butler’s motion for 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   this   court   and   argument   would   not   aid   the   decisional

process.

                                                                    DISMISSED

                                     3