Court Opinion

ID: 814439
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2012-12-27 20:13:57+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:03:58.455641
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                        FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                             No. 12-7466

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                 Plaintiff - Appellee,

          v.

IRBY GENE DEWITT,

                Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence.    Terry L. Wooten, District Judge.
(4:04-cr-00795-TLW-4; 4:11-cv-70013-TLW)

Submitted:   December 20, 2012             Decided:   December 27, 2012

Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Irby Gene Dewitt, Appellant Pro Se.      Arthur Bradley Parham,
Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Irby Gene Dewitt seeks to appeal the district court’s

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

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) (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 Dewitt 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