Court Opinion

ID: 2641496
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-11-08 01:00:44.738093+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:00:53.735778
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                             No. 13-118

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                 Plaintiff - Appellee,

          v.

VERNON GRIMES,

                 Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.      Malcolm J. Howard,
Senior District Judge. (5:09-cr-00103-H-1; 5:12-cv-00466-H)

Submitted:   October 30, 2013              Decided:   November 7, 2013

Before SHEDD, DIAZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Vernon Grimes, Appellant Pro Se. Kristine L. Fritz, Jennifer P.
May-Parker, Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North
Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Vernon       Grimes    seeks     to    appeal    the    district      court’s

order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.

2013) 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 Grimes 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