US v. Travis Sarvi

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying for certificate of appealability Originating case number: 4:06-cr-01241-TLW-1,4:11-cv-70097-TLW Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998919394]. Mailed to: Sarvis. [12-6443]

Appeal: 12-6443

Doc: 8

Filed: 08/20/2012

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-6443

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
TRAVIS LEQUINN SARVIS,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence.
Terry L. Wooten, District Judge.
(4:06-cr-01241-TLW-1; 4:11-cv-70097-TLW)

Submitted:

August 16, 2012

Decided:

August 20, 2012

Before KING and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Travis Lequinn Sarvis, Appellant Pro Se. Alfred William Walker
Bethea, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Colubmia, South
Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 12-6443

Doc: 8

Filed: 08/20/2012

Pg: 2 of 3

Lequinn

seeks

to

appeal

untimely

his

28

PER CURIAM:
Travis
court’s

order

Sarvis

dismissing

(West Supp. 2012) motion.

as

the

district

U.S.C.A.

§

2255

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.”
(2006).

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2)

When the district court denies relief on the merits, a

prisoner

satisfies

this

jurists

would

reasonable

standard
find

by

that

demonstrating

the

district

that

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).
denies

relief

demonstrate

on

both

procedural

that

the

When the district court

grounds,

dispositive

the

prisoner

procedural

must

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 Sarvis has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we

deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.
dispense

with

oral

argument

because

2

the

facts

and

We

legal

Appeal: 12-6443

Doc: 8

Filed: 08/20/2012

Pg: 3 of 3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

3