Court Opinion

ID: 811078
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2012-10-31 19:45:50+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:33:26.503901
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                             No. 12-6638

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                 Plaintiff - Appellee,

          v.

DONALD CHANEY,

                 Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia.     Margaret B. Seymour, District
Judge. (3:08-cr-00773-MBS-1; 3:11-cv-70059-MBS)

Submitted:   September 11, 2012            Decided:   October 31, 2012

Before KING, GREGORY, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Donald Chaney, Appellant Pro Se.    Robert Claude Jendron, Jr.,
Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Donald        Chaney    seeks   to    appeal    the   district       court’s

order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 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) (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 Chaney has not made the requisite showing.                        Accordingly, we

deny the motion to hold the case in abeyance, deny a certificate

of appealability, and dismiss the appeal.                   We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

                                            2
presented in the materials before the court and argument would

not aid the decisional process.

                                                     DISMISSED

                                  3