Court Opinion

ID: 3158697
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-11-30 20:00:47.435666+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:03:15.043481
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                        FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                              No. 15-6797

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                  Plaintiff – Appellee,

            v.

JAMES O. ELLIS,

                  Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond.    Henry E. Hudson, District
Judge. (3:08-cr-00083-HEH-RCY-1; 3:12-cv-00304-HEH-RCY)

Submitted:    November 17, 2015             Decided:   November 30, 2015

Before AGEE and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit
Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James O.     Ellis, Appellant Pro Se.        Angela Mastandrea-Miller,
Assistant     United States Attorney,        Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

      James O. Ellis 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

Ellis 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