Court Opinion

ID: 3164840
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-12-22 20:00:48.531744+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:08:18.213505
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 15-7575

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                      Plaintiff – Appellee,

          v.

TRAVIS NICODEMUS GRADY,

                      Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Harrisonburg.    Glen E. Conrad, Chief
District Judge. (5:10-cr-00002-GEC-1; 5:14-cv-80780-GEC-RSB)

Submitted:   December 17, 2015            Decided:   December 22, 2015

Before DIAZ and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Travis Nicodemus Grady, Appellant Pro Se. Erin Marie Harrigan
Kulpa,   Assistant  United   States   Attorney, Charlottesville,
Virginia; Jeb Thomas Terrien, Assistant United States Attorney,
Harrisonburg, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       Travis Nicodemus Grady seeks to appeal the district court’s

order dismissing as untimely 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

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

a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma

pauperis,       and   dismiss    the        appeal.       We    dispense      with     oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

                                              2
presented in the materials before this court and argument would

not aid the decisional process.

                                                      DISMISSED

                                  3