United States v. Hammam Hampton ( 2015 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-7923
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
HAMMAM ABDUL HAMPTON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior
District Judge. (5:06-cr-00300-F-1; 5:12-cv-00138-F)
Submitted: January 29, 2015 Decided: March 2, 2015
Before NIEMEYER and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Stephen Clayton Gordon, Assistant Federal Public Defender,
Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. Rudy E. Renfer,
Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Hammam Abdul Hampton 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 Hampton has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly,
we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, deny a certificate of
appealability, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
2
presented in the materials before this court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3