United States v. Justin Crenshaw , 611 F. App'x 162 ( 2015 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-6696
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
JUSTIN CRENSHAW,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. Malcolm J. Howard,
Senior District Judge. (7:09-cr-00054-H-1; 7:13-cv-00020-H)
Submitted: July 23, 2015 Decided: August 7, 2015
Before SHEDD, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Justin Crenshaw, Appellant Pro Se. Jason Michael Kellhofer,
Assistant United States Attorney, Jennifer E. Wells, OFFICE OF
THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Justin Crenshaw seeks to appeal the district court’s orders
dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion and
denying reconsideration. The orders are 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
Crenshaw 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