DocketNumber： 15-6267
Citation Numbers： 607 F. App'x 300
Filed Date： 6/22/2015
Status： Non-Precedential
Modified Date： 1/13/2023
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-6267 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. DECARDIO LAMONT GLISSON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Senior District Judge. (3:08-cr-00405-JFA-1; 3:13-cv-02716-JFA) Submitted: June 12, 2015 Decided: June 22, 2015 Before GREGORY and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Decardio Lamont Glisson, Appellant Pro Se. John David Rowell, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Decardio Lamont Glisson 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 Glisson 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