United States v. Charlie Bells, Jr. ( 2013 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-7986
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
CHARLIE BELLS, JR.,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., District
Judge. (3:08-cr-01264-JFA-1; 3:12-cv-01348-JFA)
Submitted: February 26, 2013 Decided: March 1, 2013
Before MOTZ, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Charlie Bells, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Robert Claude Jendron,
Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Charlie Bells, Jr., 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 Bells 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