US v. Jamie Groom

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying updating certificate of appealability status Originating case number: 4:07-cr-01038-RBH-1,4:11-cv-02814-RBH Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998879077]. Mailed to: Jamie Lee Grooms. [12-6602]

Appeal: 12-6602

Doc: 9

Filed: 06/20/2012

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-6602

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JAMIE LEE GROOMS,
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-01038-RBH-1; 4:11-cv-02814-RBH)

Submitted:

June 14, 2012

Decided: June 20, 2012

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jamie Lee Grooms, Appellant Pro Se.
Robert Frank Daley, Jr.,
Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina,
Carrie
Fisher
Sherard,
Assistant
United
States
Attorney,
Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 12-6602

Doc: 9

Filed: 06/20/2012

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Jamie Lee Grooms seeks to appeal the district court’s
orders dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.
2011) motion and denying his subsequent motion to reconsider.
The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge
issues

a

certificate

§ 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006).
issue

absent

“a

of

appealability.

U.S.C.

A certificate of appealability will not

substantial

constitutional right.”

28

showing

of

the

denial

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006).

of

a

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

Cockrell,

(2000);

(2003).

see

Miller-El

v.

537

U.S.

322,

336-38

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 Grooms has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we

deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.
dispense

with

oral

argument

because

the

facts

and

We

legal

Appeal: 12-6602

Doc: 9

Filed: 06/20/2012

Pg: 3 of 3

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

3