US v. Ira Huggins

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to appoint/assign counsel [998378034-2] Originating case number: 2:04-cr-01098-PMD-1,2:08-cv-70001-PMD Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998478566] [10-6187]

US v. Ira Huggins

Doc. 0

Case: 10-6187 Document: 17

Date Filed: 12/06/2010

Page: 1

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-6187 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. IRA ST ANTHONY HUGGINS, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Patrick Michael Duffy, Senior District Judge. (2:04-cr-01098-PMD-1; 2:08-cv-70001-PMD) Submitted: November 30, 2010 Decided: December 6, 2010

Before WILKINSON, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ira St Anthony Huggins, Appellant Pro Se. Alston Calhoun Badger, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Dockets.Justia.com

Case: 10-6187 Document: 17

Date Filed: 12/06/2010

Page: 2

PER CURIAM: Ira St Anthony Huggins seeks to appeal the district court's order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for

reconsideration of the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2010) motion. not appealable unless a circuit justice or The order is issues a

judge

certificate of appealability. Reid v. Angelone, of 369 F.3d

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006); 363, will 369 not (4th issue Cir. 2004). "a

A certificate

appealability

absent

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). relief on the merits, that a When the district court denies satisfies would this standard that claims 473, by the is 484

prisoner

demonstrating district debatable

reasonable of v.

jurists the

find

court's or

assessment Slack

constitutional 529 U.S.

wrong.

McDaniel,

(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. at 484-85. that We have independently has not made reviewed the

Slack, 529 U.S. the record and

conclude

Huggins

requisite

showing.

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. Huggins' motion for 2 appointment of counsel is

Case: 10-6187 Document: 17

Date Filed: 12/06/2010

Page: 3

denied. legal before

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and are and adequately argument presented not in aid the the materials decisional

contentions the court

would

process. DISMISSED

3