Court Opinion

ID: 2720507
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2014-08-25 19:00:28.731149+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:02:38.539981
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                               No. 14-6488

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff - Appellee,

          v.

TIMOTHY LEE SCAIFE, a/k/a Timothy John Scaife,

                Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond.     Robert E. Payne, Senior
District Judge. (3:09-cr-00376-REP-1; 3:11-cv-00163-REP)

Submitted:   August 21, 2014                 Decided:   August 25, 2014

Before SHEDD, AGEE, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Timothy Lee Scaife, Appellant Pro Se. Peter Sinclair Duffey,
Norval George Metcalf, Assistant United States Attorneys,
Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Timothy         Lee    Scaife      seeks        to    appeal       the    district

court’s    order      denying      relief      on    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 Scaife has not made the requisite showing.                              Accordingly, we

deny    Scaife’s         motion     for    appointment            of    counsel,       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