US v. Anthony Miffin
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:08-cr-00325-REP-4,3:10-cv-00878-REP Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999006312]. Mailed to: Anthony Miffin. [12-7857]
Appeal: 12-7857
Doc: 5
Filed: 12/19/2012
Pg: 1 of 3
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-7857
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
ANTHONY JERMART MIFFIN, a/k/a Ant,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond.
Robert E. Payne, Senior
District Judge. (3:08-cr-00325-REP-4; 3:10-cv-00878-REP)
Submitted:
December 13, 2012
Decided:
December 19, 2012
Before MOTZ, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Anthony Jermart Miffin,
Assistant United States
Appellee.
Appellant
Attorney,
Pro Se.
Richmond,
Elizabeth
Virginia,
Wu,
for
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Appeal: 12-7857
Doc: 5
Filed: 12/19/2012
Pg: 2 of 3
PER CURIAM:
Anthony Jermart Miffin seeks to appeal the district
court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West
Supp.
2012)
motion.
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 Miffin 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: 12-7857
Doc: 5
contentions
Filed: 12/19/2012
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?