United States v. Victor Hargrave , 548 F. App'x 946 ( 2013 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 13-7382
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
    Plaintiff - Appellee
    v.
    VICTOR WILLIAM HARGRAVE, a/k/a David Lee Hargrave
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
    District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. James A. Beaty, Jr.,
    District Judge. (4:95-cr-00186-JAB-1; 1:12-cv-00989-JAB-JEP)
    Submitted:   December 19, 2013            Decided:   December 24, 2013
    Before SHEDD, DAVIS, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Victor William Hargrave, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Michael
    Hamilton,   Angela  Hewlett   Miller,  Assistant   United States
    Attorneys, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Victor William Hargrave seeks to appeal the district
    court’s    order    adopting       the    report     and     recommendation        of   the
    magistrate judge, construing Hargrave’s coram nobis petition as
    a 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2013) motion, and dismissing it
    as successive.           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 Hargrave 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
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 13-7382

Citation Numbers: 548 F. App'x 946

Judges: Shedd, Davis, Floyd

Filed Date: 12/24/2013

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/6/2024