US v. James Smith
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case numbers: 5:99-cr-00161-1,5:09-cv-01257. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999053377]. Mailed to: James Smith. [12-7809]
Appeal: 12-7809
Doc: 8
Filed: 02/28/2013
Pg: 1 of 3
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-7809
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JAMES PRESTON SMITH,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Beckley.
Irene C. Berger,
District Judge. (5:99-cr-00161-1; 5:09-cv-01257)
Submitted:
February 26, 2013
Decided:
February 28, 2013
Before MOTZ, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James Preston Smith, Appellant Pro Se. John J. Frail, Assistant
United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Appeal: 12-7809
Doc: 8
Filed: 02/28/2013
Pg: 2 of 3
PER CURIAM:
James
Preston
Smith
seeks
to
appeal
the
district
court’s order adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and
denying as successive his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2012)
motion.
judge
The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or
issues
a
certificate
§ 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006).
issue
absent
“a
of
28
U.S.C.
A certificate of appealability will not
substantial
constitutional right.”
appealability.
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 Smith 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: 12-7809
Doc: 8
contentions
Filed: 02/28/2013
are
adequately
Pg: 3 of 3
presented
in
the
materials
before
this 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?