Court Opinion

ID: 4157462
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2017-04-03 19:02:06.064307+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:46:42.042685
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                      No. 16-7043

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                    Plaintiff - Appellee,

             v.

ROBERT MAURICE PARIS, a/k/a Black,

                    Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, Chief District Judge. (2:08-cr-00205-RBS-TEM-3;
2:16-cv-00261-RBS)

Submitted: March 30, 2017                                         Decided: April 3, 2017

Before TRAXLER and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robert Maurice Paris, Appellant Pro Se. Darryl James Mitchell, Assistant United States
Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       Robert Maurice Paris 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 Paris has not made

the requisite showing in light of the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Beckles v. United

States, __ S. Ct. __, No. 15-8544, 2017 WL 855781 (U.S. Mar. 6, 2017). Accordingly,

although we grant Paris’ motion to file a supplemental informal brief, we deny 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 before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

                                                                             DISMISSED

                                             2