United States v. Brian Dinning , 678 F. App'x 112 ( 2017 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-7219
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
BRIAN RAY DINNING,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 16-7220
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
BRIAN RAY DINNING,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District
Judge. (2:12-cr-00084-RAJ-LRL-1, 2:15-cv-00420-RAJ;
2:12-cr-00140-RAJ-LRL-1, 2:15-cv-00421-RAJ)
Submitted: February 23, 2017 Decided: February 27, 2017
Before SHEDD and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Brian Ray Dinning, Appellant Pro Se. Stephen Westley Haynie,
Assistant United States Attorney, Elizabeth Marie Yusi, OFFICE
OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
Brian Ray Dinning seeks to appeal the district court’s
order denying relief on 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
Dinning has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we
deny Dinning’s motion for a certificate of appealability, deny
leave to proceed in forma pauperis, grant Dinning’s motion to
file an oversized informal brief, and dismiss the appeal. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
3
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
4