Court Opinion

ID: 2682183
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2014-07-08 07:01:23.398869+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:41:56.023788
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                             No. 14-6164

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                 Plaintiff - Appellee,

          v.

RICHOL GRINER,

                 Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt.     Peter J. Messitte, Senior District
Judge. (8:07-cr-00160-PJM-3; 8:13-cv-01261-PJM)

Submitted:   June 26, 2014                  Decided:   July 1, 2014

Before WILKINSON, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Richol Griner, Appellant Pro Se. Deborah A. Johnston, Assistant
United   States  Attorney,   Molly  Elizabeth  Thebes,  Special
Assistant United States Attorney, Thomas Patrick Windom, OFFICE
OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenbelt, Maryland; Antonio J.
Reynolds, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore,
Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

               Richol    Griner    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 Griner 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