US v. Jimmie Daniel
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 4:07-cr-00341-RBH-1,4:09-cv-70078-RBH Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998478631] [10-6748]
US v. Jimmie Daniel
Doc. 0
Case: 10-6748 Document: 9
Date Filed: 12/06/2010
Page: 1
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-6748 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. JIMMIE CRAIG DANIELS, Defendant Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge. (4:07-cr-00341-RBH-1; 4:09-cv-70078-RBH) Submitted: November 18, 2010 AGEE, Circuit Decided: Judges, and December 6, 2010 HAMILTON, Senior
Before SHEDD and Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jimmie Craig Daniels, Appellant Pro Se. William E. Day, II, Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Dockets.Justia.com
Case: 10-6748 Document: 9
Date Filed: 12/06/2010
Page: 2
PER CURIAM: Jimmie Craig Daniels seeks to appeal the district
court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2010) motion and denying his motion to amend. The order
is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. certificate of appealability 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). will not issue absent A "a
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
Daniels
requisite
showing.
Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts
and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
2
Case: 10-6748 Document: 9
Date Filed: 12/06/2010
Page: 3
before
the
court
and
argument
would
not
aid
the
decisional
process. DISMISSED
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?